Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GLOUCESTER EXTENSION BILL [Lords]

As amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (WOOLWICH SUBSIDENCES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Courts-Martial (Press)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will take the necessary steps to secure that notification is given by the competent Army authorities to the Press of the time and place of pending courts-martial.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): Arrangements have been made for notice of forthcoming Army courts-martial to be posted at, or near, the headquarters at which they are convened.

Mr. Osborne: Why were not these arrangements made previously by the Army authorities, since they have been made by the two other Services?

Mr. Strachey: I should have to have notice of that question as it goes into the past, but I quite agree that they should be made now.

Mr. Driberg: Does my right hon. Friend's answer indicate a definite change

of policy in this matter, since there has been a good deal of doubt and even distortion about it?

Mr. Strachey: It means a change of procedure, at any rate.

Requisitioned Land

Mr. Deedes: asked the Secretary of State for War the acreage of land held on requisition by his Department.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for War the total acreage of land now occupied by his Department in Great Britain.

Mr. Strachey: On 31st March, 1950, the War Department held some 167,000 acres on requisition. A further 343,000 acres were owned or leased, making a total of 510,000 acres. In addition, the Department, under Defence Regulation 52, had the right to use without permanent occupation 255,000 acres.

Mr. Deedes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this represents any appreciable reduction in the last 12 months, and is he satisfied that the machinery for keeping this matter under review is working as searchingly and as powerfully as it ought to be?

Mr. Strachey: It represents a reduction of about 9 per cent. since last October, and it is steadily coming down. After all, it has come down by over 10 million acres, or 93 per cent. since the war.

Sir Peter Macdonald: Has the Minister thought of growing groundnuts on some of this land?

Mr. Gibson: Can my right hon. Friend say how much of the land still held by the War Office was requisioned as early as the First World War?

Mr. Strachey: Not without notice.

Mr. Deedes: asked the Secretary of State for War how many persons are in receipt of payments in respect of land held on requisition by his Department.

Mr. Strachey: On 31st March, 1950, the War Department held some 5,350 separate requisitions. Since two or more requisitions are often held from one owner, the number of persons receiving payments would have been considerably less. I regret that exact figures are not readily available.

Mr. Deedes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, particularly among small owners some hardship is being experienced in view of the difficulty of getting claims reviewed, and will he sympathetically bear in mind the claims of small people who are trying to get their land back, particularly for agricultural purposes?

Mr. Strachey: I realise the urgency of that. We are often met by the conflicting claims of other families who have "squatted" or come in on other tenancies of some kind, and we have to evict them in order to derequisition. The two claims often conflict.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: In cases where there is no intention of giving up such land as has been requisitioned, will the claims of the owners who have been dispossessed of their land be paid?

Mr. Strachey: We shall, of course, have to make financial arrangements in those cases.

Meritorious Service Medal

Commander Noble: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give an estimate of the total extra cost that would result from the grant of an annuity to all those now registered for the award of the Meritorious Service Medal.

Mr. Strachey: About £75,000 a year.

Browndown Range (Charges)

Surgeon Lieut. - Commander Reginald Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for War why since August, 1949, the charge levied upon the Solent Home Guard Rifle Club, of Swanwick, Hampshire, for the use of the Browndown range has been increased from 1s. per head to between £6 and £10 for each occasion.

Mr. Strachey: The Solent Home Guard Rifle Club are still charged 1s. per member per year for the use of Browndown range. Additional charges are raised when the use of ranges by civilian rifle clubs entails additional expense such as the payment of overtime to range wardens or look-outs employed beyond their normal hours. I understand, however, that only one such charge has been raised against the Solent Home Guard Rifle Club and that this charge was cancelled when it was ascertained that a cadet unit had been using the range at the same time.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is somewhat exorbitant to charge the Solent Home Guard Rifle Club large sums in terms of pounds for services which they are willing to carry out when they are on at weekends or at other convenient times?

Mr. Strachey: None of these additional charges has actually been made on the rifle club. If the club wish to put up a proposition as to when they can undertake these extra duties and so obviate the expense I am sure it can be considered.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept some approach from me on the subject?

Mr. Strachey: Certainly, Sir.

Selection Procedure

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Secretary of State for War if the war-time Army selection procedure is being used with a view to National Servicemen being allotted to duties most fitted to their civilian training and personal ability.

Mr. Strachey: The basic war-time Army selection procedure is still in partial operation, although some modifications have been made to suit peace-time conditions.

Mr. Cooper: Does my right hon. Friend consider it important that, so far as possible, these young men should continue in their civilian trades when called up for National Service, so that they do not lose their craft training, and if I can give him specific examples of this not happening, will he have a look at them?

Mr. Strachey: Certainly.

Regulars (Recruitment)

Mr. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to increase the numbers of Regulars in the Army.

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to make good the deficiency of Regular personnel in the Army.

Mr. Strachey: Terms of service have now been made more flexible. They cater specifically for the soldier who wishes to obtain trade union recognition for a skill


acquired during his service and for the probable requirements of National Service men. In addition, a soldier may now extend his period of colour service at any time after his first year. Further variations of engagements are under consideration.
Every effort is being made to ensure that service in the Army does not prejudice a soldier's chance of employment on return to civil life and over a hundred trades have received trade union recognition. Measures have been taken to increase the provision of married quarters at home and abroad. Other steps to improve conditions of service were described in a reply given by my predecessor on 25th October, 1949.
In the field of publicity, efforts are being made through B.B.C. broadcasts, films and newspapers, to reach the widest possible recruiting field, and steps are being taken, within the limits imposed by normal duties, to arrange marches, displays and similar events.
In addition a full examination is at present being carried out in regard to the career structure and prospects within the Army with the object of providing a more attractive and possibly longer career.

Mr. Low: But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that many of the things to which he has just referred have been in operation for some time and that, even though they have been in operation, the number of recruits has tended to dwindle, not to increase? Is it not about time that he completed his inquiry into the career and, particularly, the pay structure of the Army?

Mr. Strachey: That depends, of course, not only on my Department. Other Services and other Departments have to be consulted on that matter.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the organisation, the training and the efficiency of the Army depend largely on an adequate supply of Regular personnel, and does he really consider that the steps he has outlined will be sufficient largely to increase the number enlisting?

Mr. Strachey: No, I was careful to say that further steps are in contemplation, and I mentioned some of them, but I agree with the general proposition that the efficiency of the Army depends largely on an adequate Regular content.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask the Minister whether there has been any substantial increase in the number of recruits during the last fortnight?

Mr. Strachey: I cannot say.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the two most effective measures would be, first, an increase in pay, and secondly, preference for employment after leaving the Service in some Government organisation, such as the Post Office?

Mr. Strachey: I would not like to set a priority. There are many things that are important. Married quarters, for example, come high on the priority list.

Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend under the impression that the success of the American recruiting scheme is due to pay conditions only?

Mr. Strachey: I would not know enough about it to say.

Brigadier Head: Is the Secretary of State aware that during the past two years the trend has been for a gradual decrease in the number of Regulars, that recruiting is not making good this wastage, that if this trend continues the right hon. Gentleman will be in an extremely serious position shortly, that the matter has been under consideration for two years and that no effective steps have been taken?

Mr. Strachey: I could not agree that no steps have been taken—

Brigadier Head: No effective steps.

Mr. Strachey: A number of steps have been taken, but we are concerned over the trend of Regular recruiting.

Mr. Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the answer given to his hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow)? Is it not about time that the War Office were in the closest touch with conditions of recruiting, and so on, in America, and ought he not to be severely influenced by the experience that they have had?

Strikes, London (Use of Troops)

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War to what extent military training is prejudiced by the employment of troops at Smithfield market or in the


London docks; and whether he will consider the grant of a special bonus to troops whilst they are so eploved.

Mr. Strachey: The employment of troops at Smithfield market has not caused grave interference with military training. Its principal effect has been to hold up the training of drivers. No special bonus will be granted to the troops involved, who are on military duty.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this duty is not only an extra to any work which normally ought to be undertaken by these troops, but is also an unpopular duty? Does he not consider, in view of the fact that it is extremely well carried out, that some recognition ought to be given to these men?

Mr. Strachey: We have discussed the question of a bonus for this kind of employment on several occasions before. We do not think it would be appropriate to make it, but I entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Member that the troops have carried out these duties exceedingly well.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Can the Minister say, in the event of any of these troops being killed or injured by Communist agitators, that they will enjoy full pension rights.

Mr. Speaker: "In the event" is purely hypothetical.

Brigadier Rayner: Surely the Minister will agree that these constant interruptions of military training are serious and regrettable at the present time?

Mr. Strachey: They are certainly regrettable. Naturally we at the War Office dislike any interruption of military training, but it would not be true to say that the work in connection with this dispute so far—and I hope we are near the end of it—has gravely interfered with training.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Minister say whether the frequent use of troops in industrial disputes may have a prejudicial effect upon recruiting?

Mr. Strachey: I do not think so.

Collective Training

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War what collective training of units and formations is to be carried out this year in the United Kingdom and Germany, respectively.

Mr. Strachey: Collective training is planned to take place in the United Kingdom on a larger scale than, and in Germany on the same general scale as, last year.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of what the scale of collective training is to be in the United Kingdom, in view of the fact that he has merely compared this with last year, when there was practically none?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, I do not think it would be true to say that, but I think it is true that our major activities in this field will again be in Germany. I could not, however—certainly not without notice, and with notice only to a somewhat limited degree—give details of the training.

Mr. Low: Is there to be a Western Union exercise in Germany or will it be purely B.A.O.R.?

Mr. Strachey: I could not say that without notice.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Would the right hon. Gentleman say, in view of his previous reply, whether there is to be any training at brigade level, even in Great Britain?

Mr. Strachey: I do not think I can go into details this afternoon.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY

Officers' Uniforms

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War what uniform grant is made to a National Service officer at the start of his part-time service who is posted to a Territorial Army unit which wears a different uniform to that worn by the Regular Army unit in which he had been serving; and whether the same rule applies to a National Service officer who volunteers for a particular Territorial Army unit.

Mr. Strachey: In each case reasonable and necessary expenditure on essential alterations and additions to the uniform would be refunded.

387 Field Regiment

Mr. Wise: asked the Secretary of State for War if a decision can now be announced as to the future position of the 387 Field Regiment Royal Artillery, Territorial Army, in view of the fact that the regiment is proceeding to camp on 15th July and the uncertainty which has arisen is becoming detrimental to its well-being.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. This field regiment will be amalgamated with the 299 Field Regiment Royal Artillery, Territorial Army. The regimental headquarters of the amalgamated regiment will be located in Buckinghamshire.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Form L. 39 Claims

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of his letter, dated 29th June, to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield; and why, reversing his decision a second time, he has now decided that the provision of information in Form L. 39 gives no right to professional costs even of a substantiated claim.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Dalton): Yes, Sir. L. 39 claimants have not, and never have had, the right to claim fees. The decision to make ex gratia payments towards fees in substantiated L. 39 claims has not been altered.

Sir J. Mellor: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the statement in his letter goes back on the assurance given by the Parliamentary Secretary on 25th May when he said that fees in respect of substantiated claims would be paid, and would he also agree that in his letter he has said that the Central Land Board are merely prepared to consider making ex gratia payments, which is surely a very different matter?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. The hon. Baronet has now asked me four Parliamentary Questions on this form, he has

had one Adjournment Debate, and he has received a letter from me. If it is not clear now, I do not hope I can make the position clearer by going on.

Mr. H. Hynd: Will there not be a very heavy burden on public funds if every claim is to be swollen automatically by professional fees; would this not lead to heavy Income Tax payments by the consultants, and is it not a clear example of "jobs for the boys"?

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Will not the Minister say whether the position as stated by the Parliamentary Secretary holds good, that where claimants have to incur professional fees in filling in their L.39 and subsequently their claim is not excluded by the de minimis principle, they will then get their contribution to those fees?

Mr. Dalton: I think this is very clear, but I will try once more to make it clearer still. The only claimants who have a right to claim a contribution towards fees are those who provided professional valuations by 31st October, 1949, and whose claims are not de minimis. The Board have at no time conceded the right to claim a contribution in substanitated L.39 cases. Payment in these cases will be ex gratia.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Will the Minister look again at the statement made in the Adjournment Debate on 25th May by the Parliamentary Secretary, where it was clearly said that the L.39 forms will be admissible for payment in substantiated cases; and is not this a case of order, counter-order, and disorder?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, it is nothing of the kind. I repeat: payments in these cases will be made in certain instances, but they will be ex gratia. I could not make it any clearer if I repeated it six times more.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it a little clearer how he defines in this context the term "ex gratia"? Is it not a fact that these payments are not in any case provided for by Statute? Would the Minister be a little more clear as to where the line of demarcation comes?

Mr. Dalton: The hon. Member himself is a lawyer. "Ex gratia" is a Latin term and means, as the hon. Member


knows, that it is paid without legal compulsion and is a matter of grace—"gratia"—grace.

Sir J. Mellor: On a point of order. As the statement which has now been made by the right hon. Gentleman is a repudiation of the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary on 25th May, I shall raise the matter again at the next opportunity.

Following is the letter:

"29th June, 1950.

DEAR MELLOR,

I promised, in replying to your Question on 13th June, to consider further action about Form L. 39. I have taken this up with the chairman of the Central Land Board, and he has now reported to me.

The Board consider that a special communication on this subject is unnecessary, and that it could not be done without hardship to others.

The great proportion of the claimants, many of whom have been professionally advised, have allowed the time for answering L. 39 to expire without replying at all, and their claims have, therefore, lapsed. If a special letter were now to be sent to them about fees, it would be necessary to revive the claims and to give extended time limits, although the claimants themselves have accepted the Board's view that their claims are de minimis. The Board are unable to place these persons in a privileged position as compared with the other claimants who produced professional estimates in the course of negotiation.

The Chairman explains that the only claimants (including many who received L. 39), who have the right to claim fees. are those who provided professional estimates by 31st October, 1949, and whose claims are not barred as "de minimis" The provision of the information in L. 39 gives no right to claim for professional fees. The only difference between the claimants in general, and those who received L. 39, is that the latter have been given the opportunity to substantiate doubtful claims before the Board issued their own estimates. In these cases, the Board have agreed to consider making ex gratia payments where the claims are substantiated by professional estimates.

Yours sincerely,

HUGH DALTON."

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning which professional organisations were consulted, and when, concerning the issue by the Central Land Board of Form L. 39 and the costs of its completion; which organisations approved the contents of the form; which organisations were informed that costs would be paid; which informed that costs would not be paid; and when was a decision publicly announced.

Mr. Dalton: As the answer is very long, I will, with permission, circulate it
in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:
The Central Land Board invited representatives of the Chartered Auctioneers Institute, the Federation of British Industries, the Law Society, the Royal Institute of British Architects, and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to an informal meeting on 12th July, 1949, when the proposed L. 39 procedure was outlined and copies of the form in draft were circulated and considered. Formal approval was neither sought nor given, but no objection in principle was raised. As de minimis claims only were involved, the question of a contribution to fees did not arise. The representatives were invited to come and talk later on any points arising.
In January, 1950, the Chartered Auctioneers and the Chartered Surveyors asked for talks, and separate meetings were held with representatives of each. The Board's note on the Surveyors' meeting says that the Surveyors were generally satisfied with the Board's explanations and did not wish to press their "doubts" The Board understood that the Auctioneers were similarly satisfied. The question of payment of fees in substantiated cases was raised at both meetings and the Board then said that when the occasion arose they would give favourable consideration to the representations which the professional bodies had made on this point. It was agreed between the parties that no public announcement should be made. The reasons for this, so far as the Board are concerned, are that the claims in question do not satisfy the conditions for payment of fees which would therefore have to he made ex gratia; that the request to consider was not general, but limited to those rare claims which were substantiated; and that a public statement would not only lead many L.39 claimants into thinking that they could obtain fees when in fact they could not, but would also lead to unfounded charges from other claimants of preferential treatment.
The Law Society wrote to the Board in March about fees and extracts from the Board's reply undertaking to consider applications in substantiated cases were published in the May number of the Law Society's Gazette. In the same number the Society stated that when they were informed of the Board's intention to issue L.39 last year they saw no objection to the proposed procedure.
The Chartered Auctioneers published in their April Journal an extract from a letter from the Board to the National Federation of Property Owners stating that the Board would consider applications for a payment towards fees at the appropriate time.
Any doubt in these matters appears to arise from an impression that L.39 claimants have the right to claim for fees. This is not, and never has been, the case. The Board may, under regulations and without any obligation to make a payment towards fees, call upon any claimant to provide estimates of values. The conditions on which fees are payable were laid down at the outset and it is now both impracticable and


inequitable to alter them. Exceptional cases can only be dealt with on an ex gratin basis and this is how the Board intend to deal with them.

Private Flags

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what steps he is proposing to take to clarify the position concerning the legality of the flying of flags of their own design by business houses, commercial firms, clubs. religious, professional, sporting and other bodies and associations about which there is now uncertainty.

Mr. Black: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he is aware that certain local authorities are seeking, under powers conferred upon them by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and the London Building Act, 1930, to prevent owners from flying flags on their properties; and whether he will take steps to prevent such actions.

Mr. Dalton: The hon. Members for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) and Wimbledon (Mr. Black) recently complained to me that the St. Marylebone Borough Council were ordering certain firms to haul down flags which, in one case, the firm has flown for 25 years, and, in another case, for 20 years, without it ever having been suggested that their action was illegal. As the hon. Member for St. Marylebone pointed out, the attitude adopted by the St. Marylebone Borough Council might well lead to an order to the M.C.C. not to fly their flag at Lords.
This action by the St. Marylebone Borough Council seemed to me to be silly and uncalled for, and I wrote to them and also to the London County Council, who have default powers in such matters, strongly advising them to discontinue such action. The London County Council replied that they were in general agreement with me and did not intend to use their default powers. The St. Marylebone Borough Council, however, seem inclined to persist.
I am advised that the law, in this case the London Building Acts, is not altogether clear as to the powers of local authorities in London to forbid the flying of flags. I am further advised that it would be possible, by an Order in Council, to restrict, in this respect, the operation of the London Building Acts. But this would be a most cumbrous procedure and I hope I shall not be forced to consider it.
I am sure that the public would prefer that we should put out more flags so as to brighten London, rather than go about grimly hauling them down. I am asking representatives of the London County Council and the St. Marylebone Borough Council to meet officers of my Department to discuss this question.

Sir W. Wakefield: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that the action of the St. Marylebone Borough Council took place only because the London County Council pointed out to them that they were not carrying out their duties under the Acts? I think that that ought to be made quite clear.

Mr. Dalton: This is denied. I have, naturally, investigated this suggestion and the L.C.C. tell me they were not consulted; there was no question of giving instructions. It appears that at some very low level some district surveyor seems to have made some foolish statement on the telephone. I am surprised that the St. Marylebone Borough Council did not carry it up a little higher before acting.

Mr. Black: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply to the two Questions will afford a very great deal of satisfaction and pleasure to a very large number of people?

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in resisting this austerity-mindedness of the St. Marylebone Borough Council, he has the support of the mass of Londoners, who would like to see him encourage all additions to the brightness and festivity of London. particularly during the Festival of Britain?

Development Corporations (Houses)

Mr. Reader Harris: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what houses have been purchased and/or rented, and at what prices, by the various new town development corporations for private occupation by members of their staffs; and what rents are being charged in each case.

Mr. Dalton: This is a matter of detailed administration, which I am content to leave to the development corporations. But economic rents are fixed for all such houses by the district valuer.

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning why the rents, exclusive of rates, for houses with the same number of rooms vary so widely both from one new town to another, and also within certain new towns.

Mr. Dalton: Because these houses are of different designs and sizes.

Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that despite the variety in the houses, the rents being charged in some new towns are excessively high, and that unless attempts are made to reduce building costs many people may be discouraged from going to the new towns?

Mr. Dalton: There is no discouragement. There are long queues for houses in the new towns. I have visited most of them now. and people are only too delighted to get good houses in good surroundings.

Mr. Braine: At high rents?

Development Charge

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning why he is charging £15 development charge on a small plot of ground presented to the Solent Home Guard Rifle Club, of Swanwick, Hampshire, for use as a miniature rifle range.

Mr. Dalton: This assessment was made by the Central Land Board and agreed by the parties.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as the land was donated and the labour in converting it into a range is free and done by the club members, this charge is rather a very heavy impost on the club, bearing in mind that it is a patriotic and not a luxury organisation?

Mr. Dalton: I naturally have sympathy with a case of this kind. This, however. is what is laid down by law, and I understand that both parties concerned have agreed and the payment has in fact been made.

Oil Refinery, Fareham District

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning on what grounds he considers the Brownwich and Hook Park areas of the Fareham urban district suitable for

development as an oil refinery, together with its uninhabitable surrounding zone, and the residential area for 7,000 people connected with it; and what plans he has made for the new township involved with its necessary public services.

Mr. Dalton: His Majesty's Government have approved this project in principle since they were advised that this locality offers convenient access by water for large tankers and is well placed for the main markets. It would cost much less to build and operate a refinery there than elsewhere. Most of the labour will be drawn from neighbouring towns and there is no intention of creating a new township.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if the refinery is situated on the site mentioned, the main part of the fruit-growing, and especially the strawberry-growing, areas in Hampshire will be dead to leeward of this refinery and that there may well be a covering of oil which will cause the collapse of the strawberry-growing industry?

Mr. Dalton: That would, of course, be a matter of which special account ought to be taken. If the hon. and gallant Member will give me particulars on the lines of what he has just said, I will carefully go into the question, but this matter has been examined most carefully in consultation by a number of Government Departments.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if this project is carried out the whole of the water of the Solent will have a film of oil? Does he also realise that the tide will carry that oil up the Hamble river, which will do immense damage to the Hamble river and surroundings as a yachting centre?

Mr. Dalton: I say to the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys), as to the hon. and gallant Member who asked the Question, that if they can give some particular evidence against this site I will go into it, but the evidence in favour of the site is very strong.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Reserve Fund (Securities)

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of National Insurance why, in House of Commons Paper 61. Statement VII, the


expression "cost price" is employed as identical with "market value" at 5th July, 1948, in respect of the securities of the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund, when the value upon the said date was £12,867,972 below the price originally paid by the absorbed funds.

The Minister of National Insurance (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 14 of the document in question, where it is explained that the figures of cost price shown in Statement VII represent, in most cases, the price at which the investments were taken over by the Reserve Fund The exceptions were certain investments purchased during the period of account.

Sir J. Mellor: Would the right hon. Lady agree that if it means anything at all, the expression "cost price" means the price paid by the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund for these securities; and was anything in fact paid?

Dr. Summerskill: I think that if the hon. Baronet asks the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, he will tell the hon. Baronet that we gave an undertaking to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee that this figure would be shown in this case as cost price.

Health Benefit (Claims)

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Minister of National Insurance (1) on what grounds an application for health benefit in respect of the insured person and his wife is treated as two separate applications;
(2) why insurance benefit in respect of an insured person's wife is refused on the grounds that the insured person inadvertently omits to claim on behalf of her at the time when the application for benefit is made.

Dr. Summerskill: Where a claim is made for benefit for a dependant, certain particulars are required which are not needed for the man's own claim, which can be decided without waiting for this information. As the Regulations now allow a month from the date of the main claim in which to claim dependency increases, any inadvertent omission to claim will be brought to the man's notice in good time and difficulties of this kind should no longer occur.

Mr. Macpherson: The right hon. Lady said that any original omission will be brought to the man's notice, but in previous correspondence she said that no records were kept in the local offices; how does she propose that such an omission can now be brought to the man's notice?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member must have misunderstood my letter. Of course, we have records. The man has to make a claim in the first place and has to tell us who the dependants are. Now we have extended the time limit to a length which will give us ample opportunity to warn him that, if necessary, he should give us further details.

Mr. Macpherson: If a man has not made a claim for his dependants or mentioned his dependants, surely the fact that he has omitted to do so should not be taken to indicate that he does not mean to make a claim for his dependants?

Administrative Expenses

Mr. J. R. Bevins: asked the Minister of National Insurance, as administrative expenses in connection with the Industrial Injuries Fund for the period 5th July, 1948, to 31st March, 1949, amounted to £2,694,458 against payments of £5,674,921, whether she proposes to make any changes in the administrative arrangements.

Dr. Summerskill: The administrative expenses in the accounts of the Industrial Injuries Fund represented a provisional calculation. The actual figure, excluding preliminary expenses of £450,000, was £1,490,000. The ratio between administrative cost and benefit is bound to be high in the initial stages of a scheme of this kind because expenditure on disablement pensions is cumulative and will not reach full extent for several years.

Mr. Bevins: Will the right hon. Lady say what was the estimated cost of administration when this scheme was first introduced?

Dr. Summerskill: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a Question.

Widows' Pensions

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of National Insurance if she is aware of the inequality in the treatment of those who


became widows before and after the passing of the National Insurance Act; and what steps she proposes to take to remove this.

Dr. Summerskill: Widows pensioned under the old scheme whose circumstances on 5th July, 1948, enabled the new conditions to be applied to them were given the appropriate widow's benefit of the new scheme and such differences as still exist flow directly from the entirely different basis of the new provisions. They were fully considered by Parliament at the time.

Mr. Awbery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that two women can become widows under identical circumstances; and one can receive 26s. a week and the other 10s. a week because there are one or two days between the deaths of their husbands?

Dr. Summerskill: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that when a new Act of Parliament is introduced which has an actuarial basis different from the previous Act, it is very difficult to assimilate the two, and it would be quite wrong to raid the present Fund in the interests of those under the other Act. It would throw it out of balance.

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many widows are now in receipt of 10s. weekly pension; how many are receiving the full 26s.; and what would be the cost of increasing the amount to the latter figure so that there would be a uniform payment for all widows.

Dr. Summerskill: The immediate annual cost of increasing the rate of pension for all widows to 26s. a week would be about £10 million. There are about 204,000 widows under 60 entitled to benefits of 26s. or more, and 248,000 in receipt of 10s. pensions, of whom the great majority are working.

Mr. Awbery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a feeling of injustice suffered by the 248,000 who are receiving 10s. as against those who are receiving 26s.?

Blackpool Office(Dismissals)

Mr. Low: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many persons

have been dismissed from her Blackpool office on grounds of redundancy; and how many on grounds of inefficiency since 1st January, 1950.

Dr. Summerskill: Since 1st January of this year 122 temporary clerks, comprising 47 employed full-time and 75 part-time, have been discharged as redundant because of the transfer of their work to Newcastle. During this period six temporary clerks have been discharged on grounds of inefficiency.

Mr. Low: Will the right hon. Lady do all she can to see that there is no mistake between these two grounds on which temporary staff can be discharged?

Dr. Summerskill: I want to reassure the hon. Member. I hope he will come to my Department shortly so that we can go into the details of this matter. We do everything possible to give these people a chance and to see whether they can do their job, but if they cannot, they have to be discharged on grounds of inefficiency.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Steel Making Plants, Monk Bridge and Paisley

Sir George Harvie-Watt: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to secure for those workers affected by the decision to close down the Ministry of Supply steel-making plants at Monk Bridge and Paisley similar employment near their present homes.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I understand that these steel-making plants will not close until the end of the year. The normal machinery of the employment exchange service will be available to assist workers who register to obtain alternative employment.

Sir G. Harvie-Watt: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many men are affected in each of those cases?

Mr. Isaacs: No, not without notice, but I can say that we do not experience any difficulty in finding alternative employment for the bulk of the men.

Public Service Vehicle Industry

Mr. Wood: asked the Minister of Labour what measures he proposes to take to overcome unemployment in the


public service vehicle industry, resulting from a reduction in the annual production rate of public service vehicles for the home market.

Mr. Isaacs: I am not aware that the public service vehicle industry is suffering from unemployment. The normal machinery of the employment exchange service is, of course, available for any workers who register for employment.

Mr. Wood: Is the Minister aware that the annual production rate has already been reduced from 11,000 to 8,000 and that a great many will be affected if there is a further reduction from that figure?

Mr. Isaacs: There might be a reduction in that particular branch of the industry, but we see no real difficulty in placing them in alternative employment.

Training Centre, Portsmouth

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Minister of Labour at what date the last trainee passed through the Government training centre at Paulsgrove, Portsmouth; and how long the centre remained open in order to train 400 trainees.

Mr. Isaacs: This centre was opened in February, 1947, and training ceased there on 30th January, 1950, when the remaining classes were transferred to other centres.

Brigadier Clarke: Does the Minister realise that £177,000 was spent to train 400 trainees, which represents £400 per trainee? Is not that one way in which hon. Members opposite could save a bit of money?

Mr. Isaacs: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that the number was 436, not 400? That is not a very material point. But is he aware also that the Government still own the building and that the cost of it should not be placed on the number of people trained there?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Wool Marketing Scheme

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the report of the public inquiry into the marketing scheme for wool held in Edinburgh in March will be published.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): Reports of public inquiries into schemes submitted for approval under the Agricultural Marketing Acts are confidential to the Ministers concerned and accordingly are not published.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Does the Under-Secretary realise that the inquiry was held in public? Why should not the commissioner's report be made public?

Mr. Fraser: Surely there is a great difference between the actual inquiry and the report of the commissioner to the Secretary of State. The Statute does not provide for the reports to be published and they never have been.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Have the organisations interested in the scheme not yet had copies of the report?

Mr. Snadden: Now that the marketing scheme is before the House, surely it is incredible that we should not be informed of the result of the inquiry?

Mr. Fraser: The Secretary of State, of course, does not prevent hon. Members getting to know what took place when the inquiry was held, but what they cannot get to know is what was reported to the Secretary of State as to what he should do about it.

Mr. Grimond: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if he would publish the reports of the public inquiries both into the Shetland wool scheme and the United Kingdom scheme, it would greatly assist the producers concerned to make up their minds between the two schemes?

Teachers' Housing Society, Edinburgh

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he has rejected the proposals made by the Teachers' Housing Society, Ltd., Edinburgh, for the building of new houses and the subdivision of existing houses for the benefit of members of the society.

Mr. T. Fraser: My right hon. Friend is prepared to consider proposals from this or any other housing association in so far as such proposals relate to cases clearly falling within the categories described in his statement of 29th March.

Shetland (Unemployment)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he now proposes to take any special steps to alleviate the situation in Shetland consequent upon the comparatively high rate of unemployment and the poor market for Shetland wool.

Mr. T. Fraser: As stated in reply to the hon. Member's Question on 4th April last, unemployment in Shetland is largely seasonal and casual. Indeed, the number of persons registered as unemployed in June was about one-half of the number in March. I hope that the scheme of assistance for the white fish industry announced last week may have further beneficial effects. In addition a number of public works including road schemes and pier improvements, are being carried out or are planned with assistance from Government funds.

Mr. Grimond: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that while the situation may be better, unemployment in Shetland is still relatively high, and when he comes to implement the policy outlined in the White Paper will he pay special attention to the difficulties facing Shetland?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Pound—Dollar Rate

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what cases, and for what purposes, the pound sterling is now valued at three dollars.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): None that I am aware of.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not recall that on 23rd May last, in reply to the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), he said that the tourist allowance for France comprised a valuation of £50 as the broad equivalent of 150 American dollars? Does he still adhere to that?

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, I certainly do. I think that £53 11s. 5d. is the broad equivalent of 150 dollars.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Does the Chancellor not admit that he is mulcting the tourist to the tune of nearly £3 10s. in this way?

Sir S. Cripps: No.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does inaccuracy to the tune of 7 per cent. represent the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman handles the nation's finances?

Post-War Credits

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether undistributed post-war credits are being retained in a separate fund.

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. The law governing the existing repayments provides for them to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not recall that Parliament established these post-war credits as a nest-egg for the taxpayer? Why is the egg not in the nest?

Sir S. Cripps: Because the nest is the Consolidated Fund, which holds all the eggs.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that if and when post-war credits are repaid, the people receiving them will have to be taxed in order to pay themselves?

Sir S. Cripps: We always have to raise the money by taxation if we are to pay out.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: On a point of order. In view of the gravity of the disclosure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment.

Weed-Killers (Taxation)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax is payable on weed-killers, with particular reference to those with a petroleum ingredient.

Sir S. Cripps: Light hydrocarbon oil is subject to Customs Duty at the rate of 1s. 6d. a gallon or Excise Duty at 9d. a gallon, whether it is to be used as an ingredient of weed-killer or for other purposes. It is impossible to say what duty


charges would be payable on weed-killers containing other ingredients in the absence of precise details of their composition. Weed-killers are not subject to Purchase Tax.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Ought weedkillers to be used at all? Is not the right remedy, according to the colleague of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, classes on the rule of law?

Purchase Tax (Building Regulation Posters)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual yield from Purchase Tax on building regulation posters required to be erected in factories; and if he will discontinue the application of this tax to articles which the Government requires the taxpayer to buy.

Sir S. Cripps: About £100 a year. It would not be feasible to exempt from tax all articles which the public buy for fulfilment of statutory obligations, but I will see if anything can be done about these posters and will write to the hon. Member in due course.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Apart from the question of these posters, does not the Chancellor agree that the principle of requiring taxpayers by law to buy something upon which the Government places a tax, is entirely wrong?

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.

War Damage Claims

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims for war damage to dwelling-houses have been rejected to the latest convenient date.

Sir S. Cripps: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the Government's policy on this matter is therefore based on abysmal ignorance of the facts?

Sir S. Cripps: No, it is not based on abysmal ignorance of the facts, but this fact is not available.

Captain Ryder: When the Chancellor says that it is not available, is it because

he does not wish to disclose this information to the House or because the War Damage Commission have not the necessary information?

Sir S. Cripps: Had the hon. and gallant Member had a little more knowledge of the usual courtesies of Question Time, he would not have asked that supplementary question.

Income Tax (Fares)

Nigel Davies: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the continually increasing cost of travel, he will permit fares for travel to and from work to be allowed against Income Tax as a business expense.

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.

Mr. Davies: Is the Chancellor aware that the present high rates of taxation and fares mean that fares are liable to take a fair proportion of a man's income after taxation? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give further special consideration to this point, in view of the fact that the present housing shortage prevents people from seeking redress by going to live nearer to their work?

Sir S. Cripps: This matter has been carefully considered. I am afraid that nothing can be done.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Without asking the Chancellor to anticipate his Budget statement, might I ask him whether he would not go into this matter with great care before next year?

Sir S. Cripps: It has been gone into with great care.

Swedish Timber

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many dollars he placed at the disposal of the German Government for the purchase of Swedish timber; and why this timber was not secured for the housing needs of this country.

Sir S. Cripps: None, Sir.

Mr. Osborne: If I bring the Chancellor evidence from the timber importing trade that this has been done, will he give it consideration?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid it is impossible for the hon. Member to bring such evidence.

Gold and Dollar Reserves

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider publishing as a matter of urgency how much of the increase of 180 million gold and dollar reserves for the last quarter arises from the United Kingdom trade: and how much from the trade of the remainder of the sterling area.

Sir S. Cripps: The increase in our gold and dollar reserves was 438 million dollars in the second quarter of this year. I have nothing to add at present to my statement of 5th July, but the balance of payments White Paper will give the usual analysis in due course.

Mr. Osborne: But since the Chancellor knows the White Paper may not be issued until about October, and that the real interest in this statement will then be lost, could an approximate figure be given to the House?

Sir S. Cripps: No, I am afraid it would not be possible to give an accurate approximation.

Mr. Nicholson: Does that figure include the figure of gold and dollar reserves held by the Exchange Equalisation Fund?

Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Order Paper.

Saarbrucken Bonds (British Holders)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to protect the rights of British holders of the bonds of the City of Saarbrucken.

Sir S. Cripps: Discussions are proceed-in with the French Government.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Chancellor say whether the French Government have made sterling available for the service of these bonds during the period for which they have been responsible?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid I cannot say without notice.

Legacies (British Subjects Abroad)

Mr. Russell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why British subjects living abroad who receive legacies are not allowed to invest the proceeds as they

think fit during the period in which they are not allowed to transfer them abroad.

Sir S. Cripps: British subjects living abroad in sterling area and soft currency countries can invest the proceeds of legacies left them by residents of the United Kingdom in any sterling security. But those who have become permanent residents of hard currency countries are only permitted to transfer the first £500 of each bequest. The remaining proceeds are treated as blocked and according to the current rules for the investment of blocked funds they can be invested only in British Government securities with a life of not less than 10 years.

Mr. Russell: Can the Chancellor say why that condition should apply to permanent residents in foreign countries? Further, how would he define a permanent resident? A man might live abroad for 10 years and then come back.

Sir S. Cripps: It applies to permanent residents because it is only in such cases that the funds are blocked, and this is the regulation which applies to blocked funds. If the hon. Member desires a definition of "permanent resident" perhaps he will put a Question on the Order Paper.

Captain Crookshank: Could not the Chancellor look at this matter again? Surely it is unfair that these beneficiaries should not be able to invest the proceeds of their legacies as they will, whether those funds are blocked or not?

Sir S. Cripps: One cannot give a preference to those people over other holders of blocked sterling.

Captain Crookshank: But surely the blocking of sterling was originally only a war measure? Surely we have passed out of that sphere?

Sir S. Cripps: No. We are still blocking sterling.

Mr. Drayson: Can these people invest their funds in 3 1/2 per cent. War Loan?

Sir S. Cripps: If that is a Government security with a life of not less than 10 years.

Mr. Drayson: It is optionally redeemable in 1952, I think?

Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that Question on the Order Paper.

European Payments Union

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make a statement on the European Payments Agreement.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir; with permission I propose to make a statement at the end of Questions.

Later—

Sir S. Cripps: The Council of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation reached unanimous agreement in Paris on 7th July on proposals for establishing a European Payments Union as from the 1st of this month. The documents incorporating these proposals were approved by, and have been made public by, the Council. A few copies only are so far available in this country, but I have arranged for some to be placed in the Library.
The Organisation will now proceed to draft a Convention for signature by the participating Governments. This will take some weeks. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, Parliamentary authority will be required for the provision of credit and for the discharge of our other obligations under the scheme, and legislation to this end will be introduced in the autumn. I propose, however, to make such arrangements through the Civil Contingencies Fund as may be necessary to carry out our obligations in advance of legislation, and I am sure that the House will agree that this is the right course to take in view of the importance of this scheme to the economic progress of Europe.
This agreement to establish a European Payments Union is a very great achievement of international co-operation. The objective was the complete transferability of European currencies earned on current account, so that each member country should, in future, be concerned solely with its balance of payments with all the other member countries taken as a group. This objective has been secured by the new scheme, which, by providing an adequate volume of credit and limiting the extent to which settlements have to be made in gold, establishes a basis on which further progress can be made with the liberalisation from import restrictions of European trade.
The scheme embraces the whole monetary areas of the member States. In particular, the multilateral system of trade and payments, which already exists in the stealing area and through the arrangements for sterling transferability, is brought into effective association with this new multilateral system in Europe. through the membership of the United Kingdom.
The new payments scheme is associated with certain principles of commercial policy which are an essential and most important part of the whole arrangement. Subject to certain exceptions for specially difficult cases, each member country will be required as from the 1st January next to avoid any discrimination in its licensing of imports as between one member country and another; and, in particular, a member country which has been discriminating hitherto by reason solely of bilateral payments difficulties must remove forthwith any such discrimination so far as concerns the open general licences that it has issued under the O.E.E.C. programme for liberalisation of trade, unless it is itself being discriminated against by the other country.
We are currently discriminating against certain O.E.E.C. countries on balance of payments grounds, and these rules have therefore an important bearing on our own import policy. There is no discrimination against our trade in Belgium, Luxembourg and the Belgian Congo, and we shall on 17th July extend our open general licences to imports from these countries of commodities already imported under open general licences from other O.E.E.C. countries. The same consideration applies to invisible payments with the result, among other things, that, as from 17th July, there will no longer be a restriction on the number of tourists who may visit Belgium. Switzerland, similarly, does not discriminate against us and we shall do the same in her case as soon as the Swiss Government confirm their intention of becoming effective members of the Union as from 1st July. The only other participating country excluded from the benefit of our open general licences is Western Germany. Western Germany, however, unlike the other countries I have mentioned, is treating the trade of certain other countries more favourably than ours and we are at


present negotiating on this matter with a delegation from Frankfurt. If, as I hope, these negotiations result in an agreement for a sufficient extension to us of the facilities that Western Germany accords to some of our competitors in her market, we shall extend our open general licences to imports from Western Germany.
The new scheme is a measure of the economic recovery which has taken place in Europe since the war to which the generous aid given by the United States through the European Recovery Programme has so largely contributed. The European Payments Union itself is based on a Working Capital Fund contributed by the United States, and the final agreement owes much to the advice and help of the Economic Co-operation Administration, and especially of the Office of the Special Representative, under Mr. Harriman and his successor, Mr. Katz.
The United Kingdom has the largest quota in the Union—1,060 million units equivalent to one dollar each out of a total of nearly 4,000 million, or approximately 27 per cent. According to the rules of the Union, this means that if we are a net creditor in Europe we undertake to provide goods and services up to a value of 210 million units against credit. and thereafter against 50 per cent. credit and 50 per cent. gold payments, until we reach the total limit of 1.060 million units. On the other hand, if we are a net debtor in Europe, we are entitled to draw on credit up to 210 million units and thereafter to cover our deficits partly by drawing on credit and partly by gold payments, on an increasing scale. till we reach 1,060 million units.
A country may reimpose restrictions if it finds itself running into deficit with the Union at a rate and in circumstances which it deems serious in view of the state of its reserves. But if it finds it necessary to do this, it must be prepared to justify the action it has taken before the Organisation; and in applying any such restrictions it must avoid any discrimination.
The arrangements for relating our dollar aid to the European Payments Union are as follows. We undertake to make sterling available to the Union. if we have a surplus with Europe, up to an amount of 150 million units against the

receipt of an equivalent amount of conditional dollar aid. This arrangement will apply to the first slice of any surplus we have, and thus it will only be if we have a surplus in excess of 150 million units that the arrangements which I have just described for dealing with a creditor position would begin to operate.
Under the general rules of the Union we are required to make arrangements with the other members concerned for the disposition of sterling balances held by them at the inception of the scheme, that is at 30th June, 1950. The necessary negotiations are in progress. In some cases, it may be appropriate for these balances to continue to be held, in other cases for some part to be paid off during the next two years. Any member, however, who runs into deficit with the Union will be able to draw freely on his sterling balances to meet all or part of his deficit. In this special case, the Economic Co-operation Administration have undertaken to guarantee us against any loss of gold which might result from such a use of sterling balances.
The Government have been naturally concerned, throughout the discussions leading up to the present agreement, to ensure that an improved payments scheme for Europe should not be secured at the expense of weakening the position of sterling as an international currency. We are satisfied that the position of sterling is adequately safeguarded in the proposals that have now been adopted and that we need not fear any detriment to our wider interests. The other Commonwealth Governments have, of course, been kept closely informed of developments throughout.
I am sure that the House will welcome this great achievement by the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, and the contribution towards it which the United Kingdom has made.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am certain the Chancellor will appreciate the difficulties of the announcement which he has just made and I personally feel that it is a very important statement. May I ask him one question at the moment? As I understand it, His Majesty's Government are now committed to a further 1,000 million dollars' worth of unrequited exports, which, in the eventuality, can be paid for from sterling balances. May I
ask him whether that is so, and further if.


should that happen, the United States have guaranteed to us a similar gold payment to offset the sacrifice we have made?

Sir S. Cripps: No, I am afraid that is not accurate. I appreciate that this is a very complicated matter, and that it is difficult to understand it in this way, but in effect the amount of credit we shall have to grant in the extreme case will be 600 million dollars. The other 400 million will be paid to us in gold.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: We on this side of the House always welcome any sensible step directed towards European cooperation and solidarity. [Laughter.] I do not see anything funny in that. At the same time, these arrangements are not free of complexities, and, as there is no official document which is available to us, except that which has been placed in the Library today, we must refrain from any detailed comment. At the same time, the statement is a very long one, and I must express some apprehension that we are undertaking obligations when this House has not had full opportunity of discussing them. I would seek an assurance from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, before we are bound and all these things are ratified, there will be given an opportunity for a full debate in the House. The Chancellor mentioned in his statement that these arrangements will require legislation, but we may feel that we may be too far down the road before that takes place, and I ask him whether he will issue a White Paper and also give us an opportunity of discussing the matter in full before the Recess.

Sir S. Cripps: So far as a White Paper is concerned, I would certainly get reprinted the document now in the Library if hon. Members feel that it would be of some assistance to them in the matter, but I thought it was quickest to place that document in the Library at once. So far as the question of time for a discussion is concerned, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Lyttelton: Will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that these very long statements on matters of such great importance definitely place the House in an awkward position, when, without the House discussing them, obligations are later entered into from which we cannot recede and on which there has been no discussion by the House?

Sir S. Cripps: I do not think any obligations will be signed for some several weeks.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: The Chancellor has said something about the granting of open licences for manufacturers in Western Germany, which will affect manufacturers in Lancashire very much indeed. Will the House have an opportunity of discussing this matter before the licences are granted?

Sir S. Cripps: If we get an agreement with the Western German Government as regards the liberalisation of their markets, we should be under an obligation immediately, under the agreement entered into in Paris on 7th July, to make arrangements for extending open general licences to Western Germany.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I understood the Chancellor to say that there was a difference between capital and current transactions. Since many people hold that it is impossible to differentiate between capital and current transactions, how does the Chancellor propose to define what are current transactions?

Sir S. Cripps: Exchange control will remain. This will not interfere with it.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does the Chancellor mean that 600 million dollars is the amount of the sterling balances to be jeopardised?

Sir S. Cripps: No. It is the maximum amount of credit under the scheme that we might have to advance in sterling.

Mr. Maclay: May I ask the Chancellor whether, in addition to the document which has been placed in the Library, he will also issue a simple summary of what it means?

Sir S. Cripps: A summary has been put out by O.E.E.C., and I will certainly consider printing that in addition to the document.

Sterling Balances

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what suggestion is contained in the Note recently received by the Treasury from the Egyptian Government for a final settlement of Egyptian sterling balances.

Sir S. Cripps: The aide memoire recently handed by the Egyptian Government to His Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo makes no suggestions as to the content of a long-term settlement of Egyptian sterling balances, but merely discusses the date at which negotiations for a long-term settlement might begin.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Will the Chancellor say which date is mentioned in this note as to when long-term discussions should begin?

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Will the Chancellor say why he is not prepared to give this information?

Sir S. Cripps: Because the matter is now under negotiation.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state the total of sterling balances at the latest convenient date.

Sir S. Cripps: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the last White Paper on the Balance of Payments, Cmd. 7928.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Does that answer mean that, in relation to his last gold and dollar statement, no appreciation has been taken of the increase in sterling balances in arriving at the policy of His Majesty's Government.

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir; it means that we publish the figures half-yearly, and I cannot anticipate publication.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: But surely the Treasury must know the answer to the question, and while the right hon. and learned Gentleman may not be prepared to anticipate publication, will he give the figure known to the Treasury?

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. I am not prepared to anticipate publication.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Milk (Factory Canteens)

Mr. James Johnson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now take the necessary steps to have the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926, and the Milk (Control and Maximum Prices) Order, 1947, so amended as to make it lawful to supply

factory canteens with milk in third-pint bottles.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Bottomley): My right hon. Friend is discussing this suggestion with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that this comparatively small matter is causing concern to thousands of workers; that shop stewards have met on the matter; and may we have an assurance that it will be settled in the near future?

Mr. Bottomley: I am trying to get it settled as speedily as possible.

Hotels (Government Assistance)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: asked the President of the Board of Trade what relief of Purchase Tax he is considering granting to the hotel and catering industries, or any part of them; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. George: Thomas asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the subsidy available for hotel proprietors entertaining American and Canadian visitors is to be extended to boardinghouse keepers.

Mr. Bottomley: In the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) on 6th July last, he described the arrangements which the Government are making during the current financial year to assist the equipment or re-equipment of hotels which accommodate American and Canadian visitors. We cannot at present estimate the cost of these arrangements, which will clearly depend on the amount of re-equipment which hotel keepers decide to undertake this year. It is not our intention to exclude any boardinghouses which may be able to satisfy the criterion of accommodating a sufficiently high proportion of American and Canadian guests.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Arising out of that reply, as the whole of these arrangements appear to depend on the advisory committee, will the hon. Gentleman say what is the constitution of the advisory committee, what are its terms of reference and what are its powers.

Mr. Bottomley: I am not in a position to give that information yet.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister regarding this dole to the hotel industry as a permanent gift as long as dollars are brought in, or is he expecting anything else in return for this shovelling out of public money?

Mr. Bottomley: This is an arrangement for one year and we hope to obtain from it results beneficial to the country.

Mr. William Teeling: Is the hon. Gentleman really satisfied that this will be of any use for the 1951 Festival? It is too late already.

Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Does the hon. Gentleman know the extent of the doubt which this announcement has caused in the minds of the people in the hotel industry, and can he say when he will be able to announce the formation of the advisory committee?

Mr. Bottomley: That is not the information which I have. The hotel industry generally has given a welcome to the scheme.

Comic Supplements (Importation Ban)

Mr. John Rodgers: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many dollars have been saved as a result of the ban on the importation of comic supplements.

Mr. Bottomley: Assuming that imports would have continued at the 1949 level, about 400,000.

Mr. Rodgers: Is the Minister aware that the same subscription has to be paid for the importation of papers without the comic supplement as is paid for the importation of the papers with the supplement and is not this an attempt to interfere with the innocent pleasures of the British people.

Mr. Bottomley: No, Sir, we are saving dollars, and that is the reason for this decision.

Mr. Assheton: Does the hon. Gentleman keep a very large staff making up their minds which of these supplements are comic or not.

Mr. Bottomley: No, Sir, it is all part of the general work of the Import Licensing Department.

Mr. H. Strauss: Can the Minister assure the House that this ban is not explained by His Majesty's Government's fear of competition.

Texas State Fair

Mr. Maudling: asked the President of the Board of Trade what official exhibit his Department is arranging at the Texas State Fair this year.

Mr. Bottomley: None, Sir.

Mr. Maudling: Is the hon. Member aware that other European Governments, particularly Belgium, are exhibiting this year at this very important state fair? Is it not a fact that the British Government have been offered an exhibition site on exceptionally favourable terms.

Mr. Bottomley: This is not a commercial fair in the accepted sense. It is a fair which visitors make a holiday and in that sense we do not think it is valuable from a commercial point of view.

Mr. Maudling: Is it not a fact that last year the Government exhibited at this fair?

Dollar-Earning Commodities

Sir William Darling: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the relative dollar-earning capacity of pottery, cotton, motor cars, Scotch whisky and tobacco.

Mr. Bottomley: Recorded exports to the dollar area during January to May, 1950, expressed in terms of United States dollars were: pottery (i.e., china and earthenware) 7.7 million dollars, cotton yarns and manufactures 12.3 million dollars, cars 29.5 million dollars, whisky 19.1 million dollars, and tobacco 0.089 million dollars. The figure for whisky includes Scotch and Irish whisky which are not separately recorded in the Trade Accounts.

Sir W. Darling: Will the hon. Member bear in mind the relative capital equipment of these important industries and indicate to the House the view that Scotch whisky is the best dollar-earner which this country has?

Mr. Bottomley: We always have in mind the relative importance of these industries.

British Industries Fair (Exhibitors' Badges)

Mr. Butcher: asked the President of the Board of Trade to state the cost to his Department of exhibitors' badges at the recent British Industries Fair; and the price charged for them to the exhibitors.

Mr. Bottomley: The approximate cost of badges issued to exhibitors at the British Industries Fair was 1 ½d. each; the price to exhibitors was 2s. 6d., in conformity with the charge made to buyers for their badges (except overseas buyers, who are admitted free of charge).

Film Industry (Agreement)

Mr. John Grimston: asked the President of the Board of Trade what reservations were made in the undertaking given him by the film exhibitors under which they have agreed to pay £1,500,000 per annum to the film producers.

Mr. Bottomley: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to a paragraph in the memorandum of agreement signed by the representatives of the film industry associations. In this paragraph the associations say that in their view the agreement is not adequate to put the industry on a reasonably sound financial basis; and they reserve their freedom to continue to bring to the notice of the public and Parliament their views about Entertainments Duty. Copies of this memorandum of agreement have been available in the Library of the House for several days, but I am sending one to the hon. Member.

Timber Imports

Mr. W. Robson-Brown: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of softwood recently bought from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is suitable for house building.

Mr. Bottomley: Our timber purchases from all sources are balanced to suit the many purposes for which softwood is needed in this country. A very high proportion of Russian timber is bought for housing and almost all of it could be used for this purpose.

Mr. Osborne: Is not it a fact that we have not obtained as much timber from Russia as we might owing to the bungling of our buying by the Minister's Department?

Mr. Robson-Brown: Is not it a fact that the percentage of softwood in the purchases from Russia is only 20 per cent. and if that is so, or if the figure is anywhere near that amount, will not there be a timber shortage of softwood for house building at the height of the building season?

Mr. Bottomley: The percentage given is not true.

Captain Crookshank: What is it then?

Mr. Bottomley: I gave it in my answer.

Mr. Robson-Brown: asked the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of softwood have been purchased from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and from other countries from 1st May; at what rate can deliveries be expected into this country; and how the prices paid compare with the prices ruling last November.

Mr. Bottomley: On our softwood contract position generally, on prices and on our Russian purchases, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) on 3rd and 6th July. Deliveries will follow the normal course of a rise during the autumn months, and arrivals should reach their peak in September.

Mr. Robson-Brown: Is not the Minister aware that there are figures available in the trade Press showing that there is a definite increase in the price paid for the timber purchases from Russia, and is it not time that the bulk buying of timber was ended and the responsibility handed back to the trade, who understand the job?

Mr. Drayson: Can the Minister say to what extent the timber purchased from Russia has in fact come from Finland by way of reparations to Russia, and would it not be better to buy the timber from Finland direct?

Mr. Bottomley: That is another question.

Mr. Duncan Sandys: In view of the disquiet that there is throughout the building industry about the shortage of timber holding up important housing contracts, and in view of the failure of the Government to give any adequate reply to the Question, will the hon. Gentleman, or his right hon. Friend, consider making a full statement on the timber position in the very near future?

Mr. Bottomley: It is not true to say that the shortage of timber is holding up the building of houses.

Anglo-Mexican Negotiations

Mr. Peter Smithers: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement with regard to the recent financial and trade negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Mexican Government.

Mr. Bottomley: His Majesty's Government were very glad to welcome to this country a Mexican Economic Mission led by Senor Carlos Novoa, the President of the Bank of Mexico. In addition to the most useful discussions which took place between members of the Mission and United Kingdom officials, Senor Novoa bad conversations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Ministers, including my right hon. Friend. The diffi-

culties facing Mexico by reason of the failure of this year's sugar crop were sympathetically considered, and His Majesty's Government have been able to agree a programme of imports for the next twelve months, amounting to a total of some £4 million, most of which will consist of raw cotton, if agreement can be reached on price and quality. If United Kingdom exports to Mexico show an expansion we shall be ready to consider what more we can do. For their part the Mexican Government have declared their readiness to use their good offices to facilitate the importation of United Kingdom goods.

Mr. Smithers: Is the hon. Gentian-tan aware that, although this is only e relatively small amount of increase in trade, it is particularly welcome as a first constructive step towards better political relations between our countries, and will he bear in mind that next year it would be most desirable if we could add a financial agreement to the commercial agreement?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That this day, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[20TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1950–51

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLASS I

TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,193,181, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for the salaries and other expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and subordinate departments, including additional salary payable to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the salary of the Minister of State for Economic Affairs."—[Mr. Whiteley.] [11,100,000 has been voted on account.]

To report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

SCHUMAN PLAN (MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

3.46 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): Two issues have been raised in regard to the speech which I made at Colchester on 1st July. The first issue relates to what 1 actually said, and the second issue relates to the general propriety of the remarks which I undoubtedly did make. I will deal, if I may, with the permission of the House, with each of those issues in turn.
First, then, it is alleged that I said that the Schuman Plan was a plot. That is not the case. My recollection on this point is perfectly clear. Immediately before the passage in which the word "plot" occurred, I used words to the following effect:
I now turn to what happened in the House. The Tories tried to bring down the Government on this issue.

Then I went on:
Well, Labour had only to expose this plot in order to defeat it. Labour triumphed in the debates and divisions on this issue.
The notes for my speech which I had given to the Press read as follows:
We shall get more and more of these schemes no doubt, which, under the guise of internationalism, are designed to prevent the people really controlling their economic system.
Then there is a headline:
Labour triumphed in these debates.
And the notes continue:
Well, Labour had only to expose this plot in order to defeat it. Labour triumphed in the debates and the divisions on this issue last week. Even some of the Tories could hardly stomach it.
This headline, "Labour triumphed in these debates," was an indication, a cue, to show that in my speech I was turning to the Parliamentary situation, to which the passage which immediately followed applied. This, I think, should have been perfectly clear to anyone hearing the speech, and even the notes alone, with the headline, should surely have been an indication at least that the latter paragraph referred to the Parliamentary Debate.
The sheets which I gave to the Press were clearly headed "Notes," and were marked "To be checked with actual delivery." They have been wrongly described as a text. They cannot possibly be anything approaching a full text of my speech, as they take less than 15 minutes to read, while I spoke for over 30 minutes. In fact, I added not only the two sentences which made it quite clear that the word "plot" referred to the proceedings of the Opposition and not to the Schuman Plan itself, but I also added several other quite substantial passages to the speech. For example, I paid tribute to the motives which animated the French Government in putting the Schuman Plan forward. I said that
the Plan was put forward no doubt with very excellent motives,
and this statement was subsequently reported.
Naturally, I lay no blame whatever on the reporters present. I know how very easy it is for a couple of sentences to be missed from a speech, especially at a large open-air meeting such as that at Colchester, and I quite understand that the Press Association reporter, for


example, did not get the phrase down, and I recognise that, in any case, the Press has greatly to compress our political speeches.
So much for what I did not say. I turn now to what I undoubtedly did say. The "Manchester Guardian" in summing up my speech, used these words:
The Schuman Plan would put real power over Europe's basic industries into the hands of an irresponsible body tree from all democratic control.
I agree that this is the gist of my description of the Schuman Plan. As I understand it, this is the essential feature of the Plan as at present drawn. In fact, it was this provision of the Plan which His Majesty's Government were asked to accept in advance, and this was the feature of the Plan which was emphasised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during the Debate in this House. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor used the following words on the matter in this House on 26th June:
We are today, for instance, shutting down uneconomic pits and opening others. Is this question to be left to the direction or recommendation of this supra-national high authority, who could cause a whole coalfield or steel centre to go out of production without any social or political responsibility for their action?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 1942.]
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in the same Debate said:
Now we have been learning just what is the intention and idea of this supra-national authority. It requires to be looked at closely because it means that we are to hand over to the control of a number of appointed persons the two basic industries of this country. And those persons are not to be responsible to Governments…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 2166.]
In essence, what I said in my speech at Colchester was that, for my part, a plan for international unity was unacceptable so long as it contained this provision as one of its essential features, and I stand by that statement. Such a plan appears to me to erect a barrier to democratic popular control over our two basic industries; and, let us never forget it, it is upon these basic industries that the very livelihoods of our people depend. The people of this country, and, to a lesser extent, the people of Western Europe, have just achieved a measure of democratic control over these Indus-

tries. I could not and cannot accept a plan which puts them outside democratic control.
No doubt in saying that, I went, in one respect, beyond what His Majesty's Government have, as yet, been called upon to decide. So far, His Majesty's Government have only been asked to declare whether or not they will accept this principle in advance even of discussion. This the Government could not do. But if this condition of prior acceptance were at any time waived, His Majesty's Government would no doubt, and rightly in my view, at once enter into negotiations on the Schuman Plan. But if any British Government in the course of such negotiations accepted this principle of an irresponsible authority, whose decisions would bind us to manage our heavy industries according to its directives, a quite new situation would arise.
I stand by the essential thing that I said at Colchester, namely, that I could not accept the handing over of two basic industries of this country to the control of a number of persons not responsible to Governments. Having said that, I wish to say also that, on reconsideration, I regret the tone of some of the expressions which I used about the Schuman Plan. I should, no doubt, have refrained from speculation as to the reasons which might have animated some of the authors of the Plan, and I particularly regret this if any expressions which I used were felt by M. Schuman or his associates to reflect in any way upon those motives, for I certainly am no opponent of schemes of international unity even if they involve considerable limitations of national sovereignty, always provided—and this is the essence of my view—always provided that they contain no basically undemocratic principles.

3.56 p.m.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: The object of the Opposition in asking for this Debate was to give to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister an opportunity to give a full explanation, which we have certainly not yet had, of the speech of the former at Colchester and the account of its purport given in the House by the latter. We have now had


a further explanation, but I cannot say that we have had a satisfactory one.

An Hon. Member: All written down.

Mr. Speaker: The Secretary of State for War was heard without any interruption. I think that the same courtesy should be extended to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that in preparation for this speech a handout was issued. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman now regrets that if Lincoln found a few scraps of paper in the railway compartment sufficient for the Gettysburg speech, he did not take a similar modest basis for this Colchester oration. But it certainly gives us the chance, by looking at the handout and also at the amendments which were made to it, to see what was in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, as I think he himself has expressed in the remarks that he made to the House.
Therefore, I think it is important, in considering this matter, just to see what the right hon. Gentleman himself issued to the Press in the handout. The passage which is relevant in this matter begins, and has the heading, "The Schuman Plan," and the first paragraph gives the right hon. Gentleman's summary—what he considered was a correct and fair summary—of the Schuman proposals. As an alteration was made to that paragraph, I think the House ought to hear what it contained. The right hon. Gentleman said:
That brings us to the thing we have been discussing in Parliament this week—the Schuman Plan—that is, the real issue underlying the Schuman Plan. This is a plan to give the control of the coal and steel industries of Europe, including the British coal and steel industries, into the hands of a council of eight or nine men. These men were to have complete power over these industries, and they are not to be responsible to any Government or Parliament, or any other democratic body.
I ask the House to pause at "body" because an alteration, which I will mention in a moment, was put in at that place.
These dictators, responsible to no one but themselves, were to have power, for example, to close down half the coalmines of South Wales or the steel mills of Sheffield if they thought fit and if they thought it would profit the shareholders of those industries to do so, and the British Government and Parliament were not to have any say in the matter.

It is not my purpose today to discuss whether "tendentious" or "jejune", or any other adjective, is the correct description of that as a summary of the Schuman Plan, but it shows quite clearly the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman began to approach the matter. That, of course, is only the beginning. In the next paragraph the right hon. Gentleman—and this he did not indicate very clearly to the House—approached what he deems to be the real purpose of the Plan, and he used these words:
Now what was the purpose of putting forward a plan like that? Is it not perfectly obvious that the real purpose was precisely to put up a barrier against the control of the basic industries of Europe by the European people?
That is the purpose which the right hon. Gentleman put forward, and that passage is followed by what, I think he will agree, may be fairly described as a panegyric on nationalisation and the hope that it will be extended. Whether that is vieux jeu after Dorking I do not pause to determine.
Then we come to the third paragraph. The right hon. Gentleman turns to the effect of nationalisation, which he has described, in Europe. There he says:
All this is an alarm bell to the great capitalist interests of Europe, therefore they put up this sort of plan by which the real power in those industries is put in the hands of an irresponsible international body free from all democratic control.
I say that after the Debate we had in this House, if, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman thinks that is an accurate estimate of the policy of M. Schuman, or of M.R.P., M. Schuman's party, I am surprised. It is contrary to my own experience and to any facts which are known to the world.
The next paragraph introduces and underlines the sinister international signifiance of the Plan, both by its heading and its content. The right hon. Gentleman will be the last to say for a moment that it was not for that purpose that the heading and the paragraph are introduced. The heading is, "A Montagu Norman Plan." The paragraph goes on to say:
The last time a plan of this sort was proposed was by the ex-Governor of the Bank of England, the late Montagu Norman, as he then was. He proposed a great central bank for Europe, again entirely divorced from popular democratic control.


And then these words:
We shall get more and more of these schemes,"—
and these schemes mean schemes such as the Schuman Plan—
no doubt, which, under the guise of internationalism, are designed to prevent the people really controlling their economic system.
If that is the true view that the Treasury Bench hold of the Schuman Plan, then everything that came from that Bench in the last Debate was the hollowest mockery.
Then, on that point, having reached that, the right hon. Gentleman has a crosshead, as he said, "Labour triumphed in these debates." He said:
Well, Labour had only, of course, to expose this plot in order to defeat it. Labour triumphed in the Debates and the Divisions on this issue last week; even some of the Tories could hardly stomach it.
I will come to the second alteration in a moment, but what I want to point out to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman is that until we come to the last sentence I have read—the sentence which the right hon. Gentleman hails as a triumph, these majorities of 20 and 13—there is not a word about the Conservative Party, not a suggestion that the Conservative Party had been engaged in any manoeuvres. The first time the party is mentioned is when it says, "Some of the Tories could hardly stomach it."
No one who reads that, or considers it, can form any other view than that this "plot" in the last paragraph is the same as one of "these schemes" in the preceding paragraph, and the same as "this sort of plan" in the paragraph before. Any other meaning would be completely contrary to the whole theme of the passage, and it is obvious that "plot" is only the climax of the right hon. Gentleman's attack on this proposal.
Let me, in fairness, mention the amendment which the right hon. Gentleman made. As I indicated when I was reading the middle of the first paragraph to which I referred, he added the words—that is after "democratic body"—
The plan was put forward, no doubt, from very excellent motives.
This initial sop, which is promptly contradicted by the second and third paragraphs, which threw a doubt on the honesty and good faith of the proposal,

is really very little help to the Cerberus of European suspicion which this speech has created. It certainly does not affect the thesis which the Prime Minister put before this House.
The other alteration, I admit at once, is a refinement. It repents of the coarseness of the word "stomach" and substitutes:
Even some of the Tories wavered a bit when they saw what it really was.
Of course "what it really was" indicates again, quite clearly, what he really meant, and, although we congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his sensibility, that does not give much help to the Prime Minister's interpretation, which he has so often pressed on the House.
It is necessary to bear in mind the Press Association account of what was said, because the Press Association occupies a neutral position, serving alike the "Daily Herald" and the "Daily Express," and I do not think that even the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has imputed even the mildest sort of prostitution to the Press Association. The Press Association issued this statement:
A typescript of the speech was supplied in advance on condition that it was checked on delivery before newspaper publication. A similar copy was handed to its staff reporter at Colchester. Mr. Strachey's extended reference to the Schuman Plan was delivered textually in accordance with the advance copy, except that, at the beginning, he added the words. 'The plan was put forward no doubt with very excellent motives,' and at the close substituted for 'even some of the Tories could hardly stomach it' the words, 'even some of the Tories wavered a bit when they saw what it really was'.
They then set out the amended extract and concluded:
The Press Association stands by its report of the speech as supplied to its subscribers.
The right hon. Gentleman has told the House today that the reporter omitted the words, and it must be a matter of conflict between the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman and the notes of the reporter, and one knows, as he said, the difficulty of recollection. But it is odd that the reporter noted quite a number of deviations from the script, some of them quite trivial; and that indicates he was a man who was competent at his work and with whom his employers were satisfied. It is certainly very remarkable that when it comes to this conflict of recollection


and notes he had failed to notice so vitally important an alteration to the handout.
I would also think it very remarkable if a politician of the experience of the right hon. Gentleman in making a fundamental alteration that, according to what the Prime Minister has told us at least six times and the right hon. Gentleman repeated today, fundamentally altered the meaning which anyone would take from this passage, did not get some secretary or agent or somebody to telephone to Transport House to have the alteration made. But be it so. If the handout with its amendments, even with the addition which the Press did not hear, gives an accurate picture of what the right hon. Gentleman said, then, as I said, it was quite obvious that the Government's Amendment carried on 27th June did not reflect at all the true view of His Majesty's Government which they have supported in supporting the right hon. Gentleman's speech. To say
That this House welcomes the initiative of the French Foreign Minister
was, of course, simply the most utter hypocrisy. If we make a substitution of the words of the right hon. Gentleman, the meaning of the Motion, according to the right hon. Gentleman, which the House carried on 27th June, would he something like this:
That this House welcomes the international plot put forward, no doubt, with very excellent motives by the French Foreign Minister on 9th May, and approves the declared readiness of His Majesty's Government to take a constructive part in this plot with the hope that they may be able to join in, or associate themselves with, this scheme which, under the guidance of internationalism, is designed to prevent the people really controlling their economic system.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if your great experience knows of any way in which that meaning may be translated into the Journals of the House, but it is very different from what appears there at the moment. We in this country are used to ministerial indiscretions and know what importance to attach to them, but abroad, where they do not know them so well, it was taken very seriously. This, I think, is probably the nadir of Socialist mistiming. Not only had the murkier ripples from the Brown Book scarcely died away, but this bombshell was thrown into international relations when we were in the midst of a world situation whose

gravity had been emphasised from every quarter of the House.
I have tried to imagine the effect on my friends in Europe—not on my Right Wing friends who would consider that this is merely a sort of ill-considered reprise from the right hon. Gentleman's variegated political past, but on those Socialists with whom I have had the honour to work in almost every country in Western Europe in so many spheres. If they believed that this was the product of deliberate intention, they would be thunderstruck. If they believed it was the result of ignorance on the part of the Secretary of State for War, they would be terrified, and that is the effect that it has had.
Now I pass for a moment to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman first broke silence on this matter on Wednesday, 5th July, when he said:
I understand that my right hon. Friend used the word 'plot' not in relation to the putting forward of the Schuman Plan but to the manoeuvres of the party opposite."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1950; Vol. 477. c. 474.]
That is repeated in column 475, and if there is any doubt about it, it is repeated again in column 476. We are entitled to ask what was the state of the Prime Minister's knowledge when he made these statements, which are, to use the most moderate language, inaccurate in the extreme.
Then we come to Thursday. After a formal answer and some elaboration, the Prime Minister went on to say:
I have already explained this matter. I naturally did not answer on the spur of the moment. I naturally asked my right hon. Friend about the speech, and he made it perfectly plain to me that at this point in his speech he turned to the question of Parliamentary proceedings, and that the word 'plot' referred to the activities of right hon. and hon. Members opposite."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 632.]
At this time did the Prime Minister know that there had been a handout? We should like to know whether this is another occasion like the Brown Book where he deals with the matter as an unseen which he attempts to construe in the House for the first time. If he had seen the handout and, more than that, if he had known the whole tenor of the passage about the Schuman Plan —that is the important matter—then it


is difficult to believe that he treated this House with the candour and directness which we have always expected from him and always expect from someone in his position.
With regard to the Secretary of State for War, I want to make three remarks of a more general character. In the first place, may I say with genuine humility that there is no assembly more generous, or gathering more kind, than the House of Commons to anyone who makes a mistake in the heat of a speech and frankly admits his error. On the other hand, the more stagnant backwaters of politics are white with the bones of the over-hasty careerists who have tried to mend such errors by equivocal excuses. Finally on this point may I say—and I do not think anyone will deny it—that there has never been any future in this House or in our political life for those who use alleged misreporting by the Press as a sort of political niblick to get them out of a bad lie.
Let me say this with regard to the Prime Minister. Everyone will allow a great degree of latitude to anyone defending a colleague. There is no occasion, in my view, where more latitude should be allowed. But, on the other hand, we know there is no one more adroit than the right hon. Gentleman in thrusting aside with a somewhat breathless brevity a disagreeable topic, and we are always prepared to give him full opportunity in both these activities. But when we do get a short brushing aside, we feel that it must be—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, on reflection, would agree with us—accompanied by complete candour, and that on this occasion what he did not face up to or deal with in the House was the strong, urgent and violent attack on the motives of those behind the Schuman Plan which his colleague had delivered at Colchester in that speech. As that has not been done, and again it has not been done satisfactorily today, we cannot reconcile the statements with the handout or the Press announcement and we are not yet satisfied that a complete explanation of this has been forthcoming.

4.20 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) made certain charges against my right hon. Friend the Secretary

of State for War and myself. I will proceed to deal with them. When this speech was questioned, and I found that there was a Question down, I sent for my right hon. Friend. I asked him for an explanation. He showed me the notes of his speech and he explained to me at that time, exactly as I explained to the House. that he used the word "plot" in relation to a Parliamentary manoeuvre. I questioned him on that and he said quite definitely, as he said today, that the words which he then used quite clearly separated those two subjects. He has explained that today. I accepted his word and I accept his word.

Mr. Churchill: I am trying to understand this point. Had the Prime Minister the handout before him during this interview?

Hon. Members: He said so.

The Prime Minister: Yes. I had the handout; I had the notes there. [HON. MEMBERS: "The handout?"] I do not know that there is any particular point in that. No one suggests that those notes or the handout contained every word that my right hon. Friend said. They never do. One hands out notes, perhaps, and then one adds to them. Obviously, in this case the length of them shows that they could not have contained every word he said.
My right hon. Friend assured me that that was so and I so informed the House. I also looked at the rest of the speech and I said to him, "It does look to me as if there are words there that might well be misinterpreted." I said," It looks to me here as if the word 'plot,' following on the general attack that you have made on features of the Schuman Plan, and the words which you have suggested with regard to motives, were dangerous"; and I told him frankly that I thought he had made mistakes in this speech.
I was asked what was the Government's policy and I stated it. I was then asked about the word "plot" and I answered that. I was asked nothing else. If there had been a general request to me on any other part of the speech I was equally prepared to answer. I was answering the Question put to me in this House and the whole question was: Was this or was this not a plot?

Mr. Churchill: No; the question was whether the word "plot" applied to the Schuman Plan or to the so-called tactics of the Opposition. That is the point.

The Prime Minister: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I answered exactly in accordance with that—that my right hon. Friend said that the word "plot" did not apply to the Schuman Plan. That was the Question and that was the answer which I gave to the House, and I accepted my right hon. Friend's explanation. My right hon. Friend talked at considerable length about the features of the Schuman Plan. The issue before us was as to whether, in so doing, my right hon. Friend had departed from Government policy.

Mr. Churchill: Mr. Churchill indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: That was the Question on the Order Paper. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was there. The Question was whether what he said expressed Government policy. He has explained that he considers that he went beyond what had been said in the House in saying that when a discussion arose on the Schuman Plan he would be unable to accept an undemocratic supranational authority. But in so far as he dealt with the nature of that plan as revealed to us, he took up precisely the same position—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Is the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order"] The right hon. Gentleman has given way. Is the right hon. Gentleman now associating himself with the imputations of motive?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would contain himself a moment, I was coming to that. If he had followed what I said he would know that I was saying quite plainly that, in so far as he dealt with the features—and I did not say motives—of an undemocratic supra-national authority he was completely in line with what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself.

Mr. Churchill: Quite right.

The Prime Minister: Thank you. In so far as he suggested motive, he was wrong, but I gather that his suggestions

were that there were influences which might deflect this plan into great danger, and that was, indeed, one of the points that was brought out in this House, on both sides, in our discussion; the danger that an authority of this kind, subject to no democratic control, might develop into a dangerous cartel.
My right hon. Friend has explained to the House this afternoon that he considers that he went wrong, and I consider he went wrong in the words he used, which might be held to have involved the French Government in that imputation of motive. He said that he did not impute those motives to the French and he took the same line, again, as the Government, that for that reason he welcomed the Schuman Plan.
The Schuman Plan has been and is welcomed by this Government. We have made our position perfectly plain in the matter and it is perfectly well understood by our friends in France. It is understood that we cannot accept in advance an undemocratic supra-national authority and, from what was said from both sides of the House in the Debate, the House was well aware of the views expressed with regard to the need for a democratic authority. I think it is a pity, therefore, that this matter should be brought up in such a way as to try to make ill feeling between ourselves and the French.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby is trying to imply that the Government were not genuine in accepting and welcoming the Schuman proposals. We welcomed the Schuman proposals explicitly and clearly, but we were not prepared to enter into discussions with a prior acceptance of this particular feature of the plan. That does not mean that one did not welcome this initiative. We welcome the initiative of trying to get the Germans and French to work together. We welcome the initiative in trying to get an organisation, for the sake of the whole of Europe and the world, in these great basic industries.
I think that a great deal of unnecessary stir has been made about this matter. The position of the Government remains exactly where it was, and I do not think anyone doubts it. Our position is perfectly plain. We are fully prepared to go into discussions on this matter, but we are not prepared to be bound in advance. In due course, and whenever


called upon, we shall do our utmost to assist in this scheme. I wonder a little as to why this has been brought up so emphatically. I am wondering whether it is not to cover the error of judgment made by the other side in rashly accepting the conditions of this scheme before they had fully understood it.
Now one further point, and that is the point of Press reporting. I never suggested for a moment any aspersion whatever on Press reporting, but I did state, and it is the experience of every one of us, that in the reporting of speeches there is always some concentration, some cutting down. But I made no aspersion, and my right hon. Friend makes no attack whatever, against the reporters of the Press.
That is the simple position which faces this House. I think myself—and my right hon. Friend agrees—that some of his expressions were unfortunate. My right hon. Friend has said—and I take his word for it—that the word "plot" was not applied to the Schuman Plan, but to the manoeuvres of the party opposite.

Mr. Churchill: That is not true.

Mr. Strachey: It is true.

Mr. Churchill: It is not true to say that the word "plot" was not applied to the Schuman Plan but to the manoeuvres of the party opposite.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman says it is not true. My right hon. Friend says it is, and I accept his word. I am not aware of any basis whatever or any evidence the right hon. Gentleman has to say that. I do not think he has any basis or evidence. I do not know what basis the right hon. Gentleman has.

Mr. Churchill: Every word as reported and now undisputed.

The Prime Minister: No. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has not quite heard the discussion, because my right hon. Friend explained quite clearly. Exactly what he told me, I then told the House, that there were words inserted before "plot" that made it perfectly plain that the word "plot" related to manoeuvres in the House.

Mr. Churchill: Could I trouble the right hon. Gentleman to say what those words were?

Hon. Members: We have heard them.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend stated them. Perhaps he would state them again.

Mr. Strachey: I read precisely what I said in the opening of my speech. Immediately before the passage containing the word "plot" I used words to the following effect—[Interruption.] What possible evidence has the hon. Member that others did not hear? I said:
The Tories tried to bring down the Government on this issue.
That was preceded by words to this effect:
I now turn to what happened in the House. The Tories tried to bring down the Government on this issue.
I think the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is proceeding on the basis that these notes are a verbatim of the speech. As I have already told the House, these notes are under half of the matter which was delivered in the speech. It took 30 minutes, as against 15 minutes, and there is actually an indication in the notes—from the headline—of the words which I gave to the House I inserted at that point.

The Prime Minister: I think that that disposes of that point. My right hon. Friend has told the House of his speech, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was not present to hear it, and I prefer to accept the evidence of my right hon. Friend. There is the matter as a whole before the House.
It is quite right that Ministers should be criticised. It is right that Ministers, and all Members of this House, should be careful in making statements, especially with regard to foreign affairs. My right hon. Friend has explained what he said, and he has said that in certain respects what he said was unfortunate. and I agree. But, I suggest there that my right hon. Friend did not take a line which was different from Government policy, in so far as he stated quite plainly that the objection to accepting going in for these discussions was based on the nature of the proposed authority. He said at great length that he could not


accept that, and that is in accordance with Government policy. He said nothing in contradistinction at all to the policy of the Government, who welcome the Schuman initiative, and are willing to discuss it, and, at any time when we get a waiving of these conditions which we cannot accept, to go to the fullest extent to help to work out a scheme for these great issues.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: I do not think we need or desire to spend very long this afternoon upon discussing this rather painful question.

Mr. Shurmer: Who started it?

Mr. Churchill: Sometimes it is the duty of the House of Commons to discuss painful questions and not shrink from them. We are not discussing the Schuman Plan and we do not wish to renew again the arguments which took place in the Debate we had a week or 10 days ago. The only reason why we feel it necessary to bring this matter up and give it the formal publicity which it is now receiving, is that we do not see how it was possible to reconcile the statements which the Prime Minister made in the House with the facts, and we feel that the Prime Minister' had been misled by the Secretary of State for War.
Now, the issue is a very simple one. It is no good clouding it by bringing in extraneous matter on the one side or the other. The question which I am interested in is whether the word "plot" applied to the Schuman Plan. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman himself expects every one to accept his assurance on that point, because we have the evidence of the written words which were given out at the time, beforehand, and the fact that they were not contradicted, as far as I can see, by anything that was said at the time of delivery; and that is the point.
My right hon. and learned Friend has read the full account of the passage, and I do not wish to burden the House with reading it again. I quite agree that one may say something in a speech which taken from its context, gives the wrong impression. But, the whole text leads

from the opening sentence dealing with this matter down to the word "plot," and there is nothing to break it.

Mr. Strachey: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, there is. There is the headline in the text which was precisely what one puts in, when one changes the subject from the Schuman Plan itself to the Parliamentary Debate on the Schuman Plan.

Hon. Members: Read it.

Mr. Churchill: I will read it all again. I will read the whole thing—every word. This is the handout text which the Prime Minister said he read.

The Prime Minister: The Prime Minister indicated dissent.

Mr. Churchill: No, I do not think he said he read it. He said he had it before him.

The Prime Minister: The Prime Minister indicated assent.

Mr. Churchill: We all know what pressure there is upon him in so many ways, but before he answered questions on the first day this matter was raised in the House of Commons, he had this before him. Let me read it out. I am sorry to have to impress it upon the House again. It is headed "The Schuman Plan":
That brings me to the thing we have been discussing in Parliament this week, the Schuman Plan. What is the real issue underlying the Schuman Plan?
I am quite willing to abridge what follows. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it all."] It goes on:
This is a Plan to give control of the coal and steel industries of Europe, including the British coal and steel industries, into the hands of a council of eight or nine men. These men were to have complete power over these industries, and they were not to be responsible to any Government or Parliament or other democratic body.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Why, then, did those who are now cheering vote for the Government welcoming this Plan? I will go on reading:
Now what was the purpose of putting forward a plan like that? Is it not perfectly obvious that the real purpose was precisely to put up a barrier against the control of the basic industries of Europe by the European people? After all, gradually and with difficulty, but nevertheless surely, the people of Europe and the people of Britain are getting hold of economic power. We have nationalised most of our basic industries and we are


on the point of nationalising our steel industry and getting it fully under public ownership and control. Already the British Government tightly controls the steel industry, and the French have nationalised their coal mining industry and have control of their steel industry. Sooner or later the German people will, I am sure, nationalise their coal and steel industries.

Mrs. Braddock: Go on. Keep it up.

Mr. Churchill: This is the Plan hon. Members opposite welcomed, the Schuman Plan:
All this is an alarm bell to the great capitalist interests of Europe, therefore they put up this sort of plan"—
What plan? The Schuman Plan. What could it mean but the Schuman Plan, which hon. Members opposite welcomed; which they were all driven through the Lobbies to welcome the other night?
they put up this sort of plan by which the real power in those industries is put in the hands of an irresponsible international body free from all democratic control.
Then comes a paragraph headed "A Montagu Norman plan":
The last time a plan of this sort was proposed was by an ex-Governor of the Bank of England, the late Mr. Montagu Norman, as he was then. He proposed a great central bank for Europe, again entirely divorced from popular democratic control. We shall get more and more of these schemes no doubt which under the guise of internationalism are designed to prevent the people really controlling their economic system.
Well, "more of these schemes" must include the Schuman Plan. It must include the Schuman Plan. Then comes, I agree, a headline. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Well, the headline is: "Labour triumphed in these debates." It has a lot of relevance to the point at issue! He proceeds to say:
Well, Labour had only of course to expose this plot.
Which plot? Not "plan" but "plot." There can be no other meaning than that the Schuman Plan was a plot. No other meaning could possibly be attached to that use of the word "plot." The Schuman Plan was the "plot."
Labour triumphed in the debates and divisions on this issue last week; even some of the Tories could hardly stomach it.
I have approved of this matter being brought forward. I think it important because I think that the statement which the Secretary of State for War has made to us this afternoon cannot possibly be recon-

ciled with the full text and context of what he said. The whole meaning of it is that it was the Schuman scheme that he was attacking. I am bound to say that I am not willing at all to accept his word upon that subject. But the matter is not dealt with by his regretting the tone of some of his utterances, and so on, presumably because they reflected on the Schuman Plan. That is not the question. The question is this small but particular one: whether we were justified in complaining of the attack made on the Schuman Plan in this way.
I am bound to say that I gathered that the handout was before the Prime Minister when he answered questions on 5th July. When I say "before him," no one will think any the worse of him if it was placed on the Table, and so on. But it seems to me incredible that any man attaching the ordinary meaning to words in their regular, logical and reasonable sequence could possibly have affirmed to the House that the right hon. Gentleman was not referring to the Schuman Plan when he used the word "plot." I cannot help saying that. He may have said: "I had no intention or wish to do so." but what we have to deal with first of all, is what he meant, and I do say that the context of the speech I have read out was what he meant to say.

Mr. Edward Evans: It is not a speech. They were notes.

Mr. Churchill: Then there is the question of what he said, but I have nothing to show that what he said differed in any marked or essential way from what he had written out beforehand, and handed out beforehand. Frankly, the reason why this matter is important is because of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said he had seen the handout beforehand, but he said:
I understand this was not a textual report. It was a report made in the ordinary way of a speech, and I think there was some confusion between what was said with regard to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and what was said in regard to a foreign power."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 475.]
As a matter of fact, if the idea is to say this was not a Schuman plot but a Tory plot, we knew nothing about the Schuman Plan until it was made public. [HoN. MEMBERS: "0h."] We knew nothing about the Schuman Plan until it was made


public. We knew no more about it, or hardly any more—we may have had a few hours advantage—than the Government themselves. As to the Schuman Plan being a pl, in which the Conservatives were concerned, that is ridiculous. All we said was, "Go and discuss it under full safeguards that you will not be committed." I was very much surprised that the Prime Minister had said this was a report with confusion, and not made in the ordinary way, because it was more than made in the ordinary way: it was a definite handout supplied beforehand.
I am bound to say that I am quite sure, however they cheer and jeer, that in all quarters of the House there is no doubt whatever that the context in the passage I have read, which is not contradicted or off-set in any essential particular, will be accepted as showing and proving, if language has any meaning whatever, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was referring to the Schuman Plan. Study it at your leisure and consider it. I have studied the meaning of words for a long time, and I have never read anything which left less of an interval by which escape could be made.
As I said before, we all know that the Prime Minister has a great burden upon him at the present time, and so has the right hon. Gentleman, if he would pay attention to it. The Prime Minister has a great burden upon him, but I am very much surprised that he allowed himself to be misled into thinking that the word "plot" did not cover the Schuman Plan. I am not at all surprised if he was not able to study the context in detail because of his many duties, but if he did, I am much surprised at his methods of reasoning on that occasion. I am also surprised that he should have not hesitated, on the spur of the moment as it seemed, to put it all on to a plot of the Tory Party, and to the tactics and manoeuvring of this party. Hardly one single word was mentioned about the Conservative Party in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman; not anything which had the slightest relevance to this Debate.
I very much regret indeed that this matter has not been cleared up satisfactorily except in one respect. I believe that every Member in the House in his heart or conscience, or the great majority of them, must be convinced that the

explanation of the Secretary of State for War is wholly unsatisfactory. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] For the rest, I have only to say: Let fair-minded people read—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I was not referring to hon. Gentleman opposite but to the people out of doors. Let them examine the context and arguments that have been put forward and answered on one side or the other today, and I am absolutely satisfied that they will be of the opinion that the Secretary of State for War has furnished us with another instance proving that he is unfit to hold his present position.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: I think that every responsible person felt on reading the newspaper reports of the speech made by the Secretary of State for War, that this was a matter which must be the concern of the House of Commons. They felt, as I sought to express to the House when the question was first raised, that His Majesty's Opposition could have no alternative to putting a Question on the Order Paper, asking the Prime Minister whether the statement as reported represented any change in Government policy. That being so, I and many of my colleagues were not surprised when such a Question was put down. Indeed, had it not been put down from the Opposition side, it might well have been put down from this side of the House, in order that we could have a clear statement as to what actually was said, and where the Government stood in regard to the statement that had been made by the Minister.
The Question having been asked and having been clearly answered by the Prime Minister in the terms in which it was—to the effect that there had been a misapprehension as to what the Secretary of State for War had intended to say and there was, in fact, no deviation whatever from the line of policy previously announced by the Prime Minister with regard to the warm acceptance by the Government of the Schuman Plan—one would have thought that the responsibility of His Majesty's Opposition in the House had been discharged and the matter had been satisfactorily cleared up.
This afternoon we have been treated to a most remarkable spectacle—a spectacle which is in line with the vendetta pursued


by the Opposition for many months. It is in accordance with the line of tactics that they seem to have adopted in this Parliament of attacking a particular Minister and pursuing a vendetta against him on every occasion, using certain elements of the Press to assist them in that vendetta, in order to create a feeling in the country that there is something wrong with that Minister's capabilities, and hoping that one clay an opportunity will arise of which they can take advantage.
It has been clear from today's exhibition, which is not, I say, to the credit of the Opposition, that the purpose of today's Debate has no other objective than to pursue that vendetta on what appears to be an appropriate occasion. That is shown by the fact that so much time has been taken up by the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues on the Front Bench in repeating words and phrases and in endeavouring, in a laboured fashion, to prove by some means or another, that what the Secretary of State said, and what the Prime Minister accepted as having been said, was not said, or, if it was, that the implications of what was said were entirely different, and that what they put to the House were the proper implications.
If anything further were needed to prove the object of that type of attack, it was quite clear when the opening speaker for the Opposition rose from the Front Bench. We noted that he was the eminent K.C. who went to Nuremberg, the man most fitted of all on the Opposition Benches to prove that some of the words meant something entirely different from what they did mean. He spent over half an hour in trying to prove that the word "plot" was attached to a particular part of the speech instead of to another part, and that was all.
The issue which was previously raised by Members on the Opposition Benches, was one which, quite properly, might have been raised on behalf of the Opposition by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), but I assume that it was one of those matters which he could not stomach, and that he wavered when he realised what was meant. One day last week, when we were debating the very serious situation in which this country and the rest of the world found itself,

arising from the Korea affair, he displayed a high level of statesmanship and a high level of appreciation of the need of the unity of this country and of the House of Commons—a national unity—which received the cheers of all sections of the House. I am not surprised that he has not made himself a party to this particular exhibition.
That the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition sought to follow up the laboured and, I say, malicious attack of his right hon. and learned Friend to try to prove his case, is not surprising in view of the exhibition he gave us on the occasion of the Schuman Plan Debate. This is not irrelevant because he went out of his way on that very momentous and serious occasion, when the whole purpose of the House was to demonstrate the maximum of national unity, to divert from the main portion of his speech and turn deliberately towards the Secretary of State for War and ask him in heavy, ponderous tones whether, in this situation, he should not search his conscience and try to reconcile his past behaviour with the present situation.
I have long known the Secretary of State for War, and I am unable to recall anything of which he need be ashamed in his political career. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] Every Member on this side of the House, when he saw this incident, thought it was deplorable as, apparently, did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington, because I have never seen a party leader so beautifully put in his place by his second-in-command as was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington. There was no criticism of the Government in his speech.
Inevitably, as we watched that exhibition, we came to the conclusion that it was entirely unworthy of the situation. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford ever tried the experiment of searching his own political conscience and reconciling some of the things, which he has done in the past, with the great responsibilities which he ought to bear as Leader of the Opposition. So far as I know, the Secretary of State for War has never been guilty of paying tribute to either Hitler or Mussolini, and it came very ill from the Leader of the Opposition, on the occasion of the


announcement of affairs in Korea, to make the attack which he did make, because he might well have remembered his own past.
Today, in the House, we have had a repetition of that spirit. Today, when we are supposed to be pursuing a bipartite foreign policy and bending all our efforts to convincing people abroad that in the international sphere, here there is unity, when we should be bent on convincing our friends on the Continent, especially in Paris, that this House of Commons welcomes the Schuman Plan and that this opportunity must be seized by this country and by all others—though certain considerations must be safeguarded as the negotiations proceed—the Opposition have gone to extreme lengths to try to direct a personal attack upon the Secretary of State for War in pursuance of their long carried out vendetta against that Minister. That vendetta has even been carried by the Opposition into the field of foreign affairs, creating uneasiness, confusion and misapprehension among our friends on the Continent, and it is because of that that every Member on this side of the House deplores what has been done and the attitude which has been adopted.
Whatever might have been the original impression given by the Press reports of this speech, and however much many of us felt a sense of apprehension and whether, indeed, the Secretary of State for War had not made a great mistake, we were satisfied by the explanation given to the House by the Prime Minister. We are equally satisfied with the explanation given by my right hon. Friend today. We deplore wholeheartedly the unfortunate and undignified exhibition of the Opposition, which, in present circumstances, can be no contribution to the unity which it is so necessary for ourselves and for Europe to maintain at present.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I have entirely failed to follow the attitude of mind of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd). He began by telling us he was greatly disturbed by the report of the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War; that it had filled him with apprehension; but all that was wiped away because of the malicious attack now made upon his right hon. Friend.

Mr. J. Hynd: No, I did not say that; what I did say was that I had been completely reassured by the categorical assurance given us by the Prime Minister when the issue was first raised, and properly raised, at Question Time.

Mr. Davies: I will accept that. He said that he was supported in his attitude by the fact that there was malice in a vendetta being carried out against the right hon. Gentleman. Will the hon. Gentleman accept it from me, that there is no malice from myself towards either him or his right hon. Friend? Might I also follow on the last words uttered by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Attercliffe—the need today to maintain good feeling between the free peoples of the world? That is so, especially in Europe. There could be nothing more disastrous at present than any kind of attack upon this association. The Prime Minister was absolutely right in saying that all of us ought to weigh our words with very great care, especially in dealing with foreign nations and affairs.
Let us consider what has happened. The plan, put forward by the French Government through M. Schuman, undoubtedly had a tremendous effect throughout Europe, this country, and the Commonwealth of Nations. An added feature was that when the plan was propounded, it was welcomed by His Majesty's Government, by the Leader of the Conservative Party, and by myself, and, therefore, on behalf of the whole House. It was welcomed immediately afterwards—I think on the same day—
by the United States of America. There was no dispute in regard to that.
I agree there was a distinct difference between the view of right hon. and hon. Members opposite and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, as to whether it was right for the Government to go to Paris and take part in the discussions at this stage, because it was a condition of their going—[Interruption.] These matters are well within our recollection; I do not need any assistance from the other side of the House as to what has happened. It was made a condition of their going that there should be an agreement to pool resources, but to what extent was to be left for discussion. If an agreement were made, some particular body or other would have to see that the agreement was carried out. The Government and their supporters felt they


could not agree to that at present, and that was the reason why they would not go to Paris. That was the distinction between the two sides of the House.
Not only on the first day, but throughout that Debate last week, the Government had nothing but kind words to say about the Schuman Plan. They hoped for its success, and went so far as to say that they would prepare their own part so that they could make their contribution towards it. They hoped that this would go through successfully. But what does the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War then do? Whether the word "plot" applied to the Conservative Party or to the Schuman Plan, is to me of secondary importance. What did the right hon. Gentleman, a member of the Government, say when these people were meeting in Paris? We have had references to the delicacy of the international situation, and at that particular moment, while those delegates were sitting in Paris, representing, as well as the French Government, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Italy, the right hon. Gentleman described their meeting. How did he describe it?
It is said he might have altered certain words in his speech. Maybe he did. We do not know. I am very bad at reading from notes; I cannot do it and very often I have to discard them. What is certain in this case is that the right hon. Gentleman handed to the Press Association what was a deliberately and carefully thought-out version, knowing that that would be sent not only to the newspapers of this country, but to newspapers abroad. What has been handed to me is the handout, as sent by the Press Association, after insertions had been made to the manuscript supplied earlier in the day. I wish I could read this otherwise than as a direct attack upon all those taking part in Paris on the Schuman Plan. Let me read it to the House.
This brings me to the Schuman Plan, a plan to give the control of the coal and steel industries of Europe,"—
Of Europe. So it is an attack on Europe. The right hon. Gentleman smiles, but let him smile when I have finished
including the British coal and steel industries, into the hands of a council of eight or nine men.
Where does he get eight or nine men? No one has mentioned them before. No

one has mentioned their powers, their numbers, or who they are to be. The right hon. Gentleman was using his great position as Secretary of State for War to tell the people of Colchester: "I know. I am telling you what is in this plan."
These men were to have complete power over those industries.
Who said so? We were to go to Paris and discuss all this, what powers and limitations they were to have. It is now becoming interesting, in view of the words that immediately follow in the next paragraph.
These men were to have complete power over these industries, and were not to be responsible to any government or parliament or other democratic body.
Again, I ask, where did he get that from? Even before the agreement could be regarded as finally settled, it would have to be debated and agreed upon by every one of the parliaments that sent their representatives there.
The Plan was put forward, no doubt, from excellent motives.
Then, mark these words:
These dictators"—
Who? [HON. MEMBERS: "The Tories."] No, the Government of France. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It means these dictators of the Schuman Plan who plan to get control of the coal and steel industries of Europe. These dictators appointed by the Government of France or Italy who are responsible to no one but themselves. There is not a word about whether we were taking part in this. There is not a word about Britain so far.

Mr. Nally: The right hon. and learned Member is not doing himself justice.

Mr. Davies: I wish the hon. Member would remember that he is in the House, and not somewhere in Fleet Street, which he always has in his mind. This House has certain traditions which he would do well to learn.
These dictators, responsible to no one but themselves, were to have the power, for example, to close down half the coal mines in South Wales, or the steel mills of Sheffield, if they thought fit—and if they thought it would profit the shareholders to do so. And the British Government and Parliament was to have no say.


One of the main points that was not made was that there are now no shareholders in the steel industry or the coal mines except the Government. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that for the time being.
Is it not obvious that the real purpose of this plan"—
Put forward by M. Schuman, by everyone in France, agreed upon with the free countries of Europe—
was to put up a barrier against control of the basic industries of Europe by the European people? All this is an alarm bell to the great capitalist interests of Europe; therefore they put up this sort of plan, by which the real power in these industries is put in the hands of an irresponsible international body free from all democratic control.
Then comes this, and there are no headlines in what was handed out to the Press. It just goes on:
We shall get more and more of these schemes, no doubt, which under the guise of internationalism, are designed to prevent the people really controlling their economic system. Well, Labour had only, of course, to expose this plot in order to defeat it.

Mr. Osborne: Now let Members opposite say "Hear, hear."

Mr. Davies: Exactly. That is in the handout which went to the Press and to the Continent. That, to me, is an attack upon foreign friendly countries at one of the most delicate moments in the history of the world. What is more, the right hon. Gentleman himself admits now that he has gone too far. The Prime Minister had to stand at the Box the other day and to-day, and say that the words used by the right hon. Gentleman were not in consonance with the policy of His Majesty's Government. Can the right hon. Gentleman, who is shaking his head. say he is in favour of the Schuman Plan for anyone? Surely that is an attack on a plan of that kind; whereas the Prime Minister has again said today that he welcomes this Plan and hopes it will succeed. How can the right hon. Gentleman, holding the office that he does, remain a member of His Majesty's Government. because that is the position?

Mr. Strachey: I will answer that question at once. My position is that I could not accept the Schuman Plan or any such plan containing the particular provision, and so long as it contained the particular provision, we have the question of the

supra-national authority. I have been asked several times by the right hon. and learned Gentleman from where I got the authority of the information. I got it from the Prime Minister. These are his words:
Now we have been learning just what is the intention and idea of this supra-national authority. It requires to be looked at closely because it means that we are to hand over to the control of a number of appointed persons the two basic industries of this country. And those persons are not to be responsible to Governments …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 2166]
The Prime Minister has repeated that. When I said that we objected to that, I was in complete accordance with the Government's policy.

Mr. Davies: That is the very point I am making. The Prime Minister gave his reasons why he and the Government cannot go to Paris at this moment. I understand that, although I do not agree with it and have voted against the Government. But the Prime Minister certainly did not attack the Schuman Plan on the part of Europe, but welcomed it. Reading this, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that he still hopes that the plan will be put into operation for Europe and will succeed? If he does. I do not understand the meaning of this speech—it is nonsense from beginning to end.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Alport: My only reason for taking part in the Debate is that I have the honour to represent the town at which this notorious speech was made some few days ago. We in Colchester are particularly anxious that truth should in all cases be available to the public in this country. That applies to both modern and ancient events, and we have found no difficulty in turning from the work of excavating the foundations of the Temple of Claudius in the Castle Park for a diligent search for the true story of what the Secretary of State for War said in the Recreation ground a mile away.
The Secretary of State will remember that on the occasion of his speech he and the Press Association reporter were not the only people present. as has appeared from the various statements which have been made. There happened to be an excellent representation of the local Press, including three experienced reporters. I have


made inquiries among the ladies and gentlemen concerned as to whether they remember any mention of:
Turning to the work of the House of Commons"—
or words to that effect, with which the Secretary of State alleges that he prefaced his allusions to the plot, and it is curious that none of those ladies and gentlemen has the slightest recollection of such words.
Apart from these reporters. there were also some of my supporters present, and I am glad to say that after the meeting they came away fortified in their determination to work even harder for me than they have done in the past.
To return to the reporters, they recollected one occasion when the right hon. Gentleman turned to the question of what was happening in Parliament, and I will read the words which are recorded as having been used by him. In order to show their proper context I will read the first and second paragraphs. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will enjoy the first paragraph. The right hon. Gentleman said:
No, we shall never be safe against the return of the dole queues and the means test until not only the basic industries which we have nationalised but also steel is in public hands and may he run by the Government for the benefit of the country instead of for the profits of their shareholders.
He went on:
That brings me to the thing which we have been discussing in Parliament this week, the Schuman Plan. What is the real issue underlying the Schuman Plan?
There followed the various paragraphs, according to the records of the ladies and gentlemen concerned, quoted in "The Observer" report from the Press Association representative, and the evidence of the accuracy of the Press Association reporter is that he checked it against the report of another reporter who was there, and both agreed the amendments to the handout which had previously been issued before they left the Recreation ground. Clearly, they realised, because they are ladies and gentlemen of considerable experience, the slippery customer with whom they were dealing and were taking no chances. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is dirty."]
This means that the reference to a "plot" followed at the end of the section

dealing with the Schuman Plan and referred directly back to the plan itself and not to any action of the Conservative Party during the Schuman Debate or at any other time. If the right hon. Gentleman had interpolated the sentence as he alleges, then it seems reasonable to suppose that some of those who heard him would have remembered his doing so. It would, as we agree, have made a difference to the meaning of his remark. But I can only give this evidence, which I believe to be given in honesty and good faith by those who were present on that occasion, and naturally, the House must weigh up the evidence on both sides.
There is one thing to which I would like to draw the attention of the House and that is that at this present critical time we have in an office of great responsibility and presiding over the discipline and welfare of a Service which is not allowed to take part in political controversy, a Minister who apparently has gone out of his way to stir up the most bitter and damaging political controversy on the international front that could possibly be imagined. I believe that it is constitutional custom for Service Ministers to try to refrain from entering controversial politics, and I believe that this aspect of the Secretary of State's action can do nothing but harm to the discipline of the Army over which he presides.
There is one other matter, and that is. that at this critical time in our history, when we can hear the distant rumble of war, it is the view of the French people,. and other foreign peoples as well, that our Army is under the direction of a man, whose mind moves at a lower level than that of any previous Minister in the memory of the French people. In support of that I will quote the report of the Paris correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian," who said:
It is difficult to remember a speech made, by a British Minister in any Government which has given the impression of a mind moving at quite so low a level.

Earl Winterton: That is the. stuff.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Poole: I think we ought to have on the record' the remark of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), who claims to be such an upholder of the


tradition of this House, when he said, of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport), "That is the stuff."

Earl Winterton: Hear, hear.

Mr. Nigel Birch: That was the stuff. Now we have the nonsense.

Mr. Poole: The speech to which we have just listened and the other speeches from the Opposition ought to make me angry. I am sorry to say that they only make me exceedingly sad. [Laughter.] I am sorry for the ignorance of hon. Gentlemen, many of whom have not been in the House for very many minutes and ought really to learn something about the House and its finer traditions before they indulge in foolish laughter and show their own colossal ignorance.
I have not risen to make a political speech or to defend the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. I have risen to say something in defence of the House of Commons. I believe that today the House of Commons needs defending. I am amazed that the noble Lord can find it in his heart to listen to the sort of stuff which has been poured out in the Chamber, without being appalled at what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) called "prostitution."

Mr. Brendan Bracken: It is senile decay.

Mr. Poole: If ever we have seen the prostitution of the purposes of Parliament, we have seen it in the manipulations of the Opposition in the Debate today. I am amazed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) could find it in his heart to be associated with something which I regard as the basest episode which I have witnessed in the 12 years that I have been in the House.
What this House says and does is reflected far afield in countries of which sometimes perhaps we do not think when we are sitting here. I have seen this House, in time of war, rise to great heights. I doubt if I have ever seen it sink quite so low as we have seen it

in this Debate. How this House behaves itself makes its impact in no uncertain way upon the public. It has a greater impact upon the minds of the public than anything which goes out from the Press Gallery of this House.
I came here in 1938—I hope the House will pardon this personal note—as a young man. I was the second youngest Member who sat on the Opposition side of the House that year. I was completely unaware of the procedure or the practices or the traditions of this House, and I came hardly knowing what sort of a reception I should get. I want to tell you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that soon I learned to love our Parliamentary institutions and the House. I am not ashamed to say that, coming to this House on the morning after the old Chamber was destroyed in a bombing raid, I wept unashamedly at the loss of what to me was like the loss of a very dear friend.

Mr. Boothby: What has that to do with the Debate?

Mr. Poole: I will tell the hon. Member. There are rules for the Parliamentary game as there are for any other game. They are not set down or tabulated. They are rules to which one becomes accustomed as one lives in this place and associates with other hon. Members. One learns something of the kindness extended to a new Member and something of the relationship, perhaps not clearly defined or set down in so many words, that exists between this side and the other side of the House when we are outside this Chamber.
If I may digress for a moment, the kindest person to me when I first came here was the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). I think it may be that he was glad to have a humble little fellow like myself as an additional friend, because he had no other friend on his own side of the Chamber except the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken).

Mr. Brendan Bracken: Nonsense.

Mr. Poole: It is perfectly true. I remember those days well and the close association and affinity between the two right hon. Members.

Mr. Bracken: I cannot accept that tribute. In the year in which the hon.


Member came to the House of Commons my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) and many others were doing everything in their power to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) on rearmament.

Mr. Poole: I regret that the memory of the right hon. Gentleman is so much at fault. The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) was a member of Mr. Chamberlain's Administration at that time. [HON. MEMBERS: "He resigned."] I am speaking of the years before he resigned. [Interruption.] That is perfectly true, but we had not yet had a Munich; we had not yet had to sell Czechoslovakia down the drain.

Earl Winterton: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt?

Mr. Poole: No, I am sorry.

Earl Winterton: The hon. Member constantly attacks me, and I am not allowed to answer.

Mr. Poole: I have not mentioned the noble Lord since the beginning of my speech. It has taken until now for the remarks I made about the noble Lord, 10 minutes ago, to sink in, and now he wants to make his interruption. I am sorry, but he is too late.

Earl Winterton: The hon. Member is even more offensive now than he was at the beginning of his speech.

Mr. Poole: If I really wanted to learn how to be offensive I have only to take my lessons from the noble Lord.
The principle I have always understood as an hon. Member of this House is that one should not wilfully do anything to lower its prestige. I believe there is a responsibility upon all of us to do all we can to uphold the prestige of this House because it is the finest example of Parliamentary democracy remaining in the world. There are many of us who are concerned to see that Parliamentary democracy shall continue in the world, and anything which lowers the influence of the finest example of it is doing a great disservice to this cause throughout the world.
I suggest that what we are seeing this afternoon has lowered Parliamentary democracy in the eyes of the rest of the

world. Sometimes I feel that the bitterness of party controversy causes all of us to forget that we have a responsibility which is far greater than the making of a mere party point, and I believe it wrong of us to do anything which harms the influence of this House throughout the world, in order that we may personally profit or advance our own personal reputation. Because I believe that, I believe it has been wrong today to use this House for the pursuit of what is nothing more than a personal vendetta against the Secretary of State for War. I believe that this House has been prostituted today because its machinery has been used to pursue that personal vendetta, and that can only lower us in the eyes of the world.
It is for that reason that I regret the Opposition have deemed it necessary to make use of Parliament in pursuit of the campaign which has been raging so long, in which they have used the organs of the Press and, on every conceivable occasion, have sought to impute some dishonourable motive to my right hon. Friend. I hope that the exhibition which I have lived long enough to witness in this House today, I shall never see again in this Chamber. I can think of nothing so calculated to destroy the influence of Parliamentary democracy in the world as the action which the Opposition have taken on this occasion.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: The trouble about speeches like that to which we have just listened is that there has been no intellectually honest attempt to grapple with the actual issues with which we have to deal—just a flood of words which mean nothing. The hon. Gentleman complains that this is a personal attack on the Secretary of State for War. Well, it is a personal attack on the Secretary of State for War. The question is whether it is justified or whether it is not.
In this House we must not be too mealy-mouthed about making personal attacks. It is no good trying to whimper away, saying, "This is a dreadful personal attack, we must not have things like that here." On the contrary, this House has largely grown great on the personal attacks which have been thrown first from one side and then from the other through the centuries. The question is whether they are justified


or not, and I am sure the Secretary of State for War would be the first to recognise that.
It is also said that this is a malicious attack. So far as I am concerned it is certainly not a malicious attack. I cannot answer for anybody else. I have no grievance against the Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Gentleman has never treated me with anything but courtesy so far as I know and I hope that, although I shall have something to say about his explanation, I shall try to do so within the bounds of Parliamentary procedure and courtesy. But I have heard his explanation this afternoon of what he said, and the fact is that I do not believe a word of it. I am sorry that I do not believe a word of it. I do not in the least mean to say that he has not persuaded himself that—

Mr. Nally: On a point of order. This is not a point of order directed towards defending my right hon. Friend, but we must be quite clear. There are one or two of us who desire to speak. As I understand it, the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr Hogg), for whom I have a great regard—[Laughter.] The point I was making was this: the hon. Member for Oxford had said that "he does not believe a word of it." In view of the fact that one or two of us are hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will it be in order for us to say not only that" we do not believe a word of it" but to go ahead to produce evidence to that effect? If we are to have the phrase "I do not believe a word of it" applied to a Minister, are we to understand that we can apply the same phrase ourselves?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I do not know what the point of order is. When it arises I shall deal with it. I cannot say in advance what I shall or shall not allow. Nothing out of order has been said so far.

Mr. Nally: Am I to understand that after a statement has been made by somebody—it does not matter by whom—it is not out of order for an hon. Member on the other side to say, "I do not believe a word of it"?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If I had thought it was out of order, I should have stopped the hon. Member.

Mr. Hogg: As I was about to say, I make no charge against the right hon. Gentleman. He may very well have persuaded himself that this extraordinary explanation is true, but if it is good enough for him it is not good enough for me; and I admit that I do not believe, as a matter of fact, that he added those words in the middle of his speech. I am perfectly satisfied with the evidence cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport).
But what convinces me, apart from the testimony of those who were present, is the rest of the speech as it was delivered. To my mind it does not make a halfpennyworth of difference whether the right hon. Gentleman added those words or not. The gravamen of the speech is contained in the passage which he admits, and not in the passage which he denies. The whole of the passage which he admits is a attack upon the bona fides of the Schuman Plan. I am not in the least concerned whether the word "plot" was intended as an accurate summary of what he had previously said, or whether he turned with the word "plot" to another attack upon another section of people.
If one reads the words which he said, what he is describing as the Schuman Plan is nothing but a plot. What he said was:
Now what was the purpose of putting forward a plan like that? Is it not perfectly obvious that the real purpose"—
note the word "real" as distinct from "pretended"—
was precisely to put up a barrier against the control of the basic industries of Europe by the European people.…
All this is an alarm bell to the great capitalist interests of Europe, therefore, they put up this sort of plan"—
note that; M. Schuman is only the cloak for a capitalist plot—
by which the real power in these industries is put in the hands of an irresponsible international body free from all democratic control.…
We shall get more and more of these schemes no doubt, which under the guise of internationalism"—
note the word "guise"—
are designed to prevent the people really controlling their economic system.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
Well, Labour had only, of course, to expose this plot in order to defeat it.


What is added to or detracted from what went before, according as to whether this is a summary, which it obviously is, or whether it is a turn to a new subject? This explanation is not only false; it is a quibble, because it does not really explain anything.
If the right hon. Gentleman had really reason to complain that he was being misrepresented, he had every opportunity to complain that night when he heard the report on the wireless or, when, as no doubt, he was told by many of his friends exactly what he was reported as having said. He had every opportunity to correct any misrepresentation when he saw it in the Sunday papers, as no doubt he did, as we all in our own way read the reports of our own speeches. He did not take any opportunity to complain of misrepresenting about this matter until he finds he is being hunted in the House of Commons. Having said that, I hope I have justified my unbelief in the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. In the first place, it is not true; secondly it is not relevant; and thirdly, the admitted facts are sufficient to damn any Minister for ever.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I welcome the opportunity of saying a word in regard to what has been said by my right hon. Friend and by the Leader of the Opposition and others. I would have welcomed an opportunity to speak in the Debate on the Schuman proposals—not a plan, but the proposals—but we had a spate of opinion from lawyers, which is usual in this House. Perhaps, therefore, it is rather a good thing that the voice of one from the industry that is so very much involved might be heard on this subject.

Mr. Ellis Smith: That is a change.

Mr. Jones: The right hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), who led for the Opposition today and carefully read from his brief, made a categorical statement before he had heard the explanation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that he could not accept the explanation. He said that before the explanation had been made. We should naturally expect that the Opposition would not accept any explanation, having made up their minds, as they have done, that they

will give vent to this matter on the Floor of the House and that they will make as much political capital of it in the country as they can.
The issue, of course, is, what was said, in what context, and in regard to what. I am perfectly justified in my sincere conviction, as is the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), that what my right hon. Friend said was said following a preface—
Now I come to what happened in the House last week.
Surely, when remarks are prefaced by a categorical statement of that kind, the words and statements which follow are to be tied up and synchronised with what actually took place on the Floor of this House and could be in no way tied up with what was being said either in France, in previous discussions, or anywhere else.
The Schuman proposals, of course, were looked at by the Government with a tremendous amount of caution; I am glad that they did so—"caution" was the right word. The Government were both anxious and cautious. The Opposition were rather hasty and, in my opinion, irresponsible. We had the spectacle on the Floor of this House of the Opposition seeking to rush the Government into accepting unconditionally, without full and complete information, the Schuman proposals, which could, and might, have done irreparable harm to the men I have the honour to represent—that grand body of men the like of whom has yet to be equalled from the point of view of bringing about our economic recovery, doing a good job of work, and setting an example to the world at large.
We have had the spectacle of hon. and right hon. Members of the Opposition being opposed tooth and nail to the tune of 1,090 speeches all told, 790 of which they made, against nationalising the iron and steel industry of Britain. Yet the same people have now sought to rush the Government into some form of international authority for the basic industries upon which we so much depend. This situation was rather alarming to ordinary men like myself; the ordinary sons of toil. Not so many months ago we saw the Opposition seeking to prevent the control of our own iron and steel industry by a democratically-set-up body; now they have sought to put our two main industries into a


not-so-democratic set-up under some other body. Those are the two things I cannot tie up, but I do not wish to take longer at this stage on that issue.
The issue is, were the words which my right hon. Friend used attributable to the Schuman Plan as such or to the Tory tactics adopted in this House? I am sincerely convinced—my hon. Friends on this side and Members of the Opposition know that if I were convinced otherwise I would say so—that my right hon. Friend was speaking in relation to what had happened in the Debate on the Schuman proposals, and not on the Plan itself. Naturally, the Opposition and their Leader, who is a past master in the use of words and, in the art of taking advantage of any opportunity that occurs between now and the next General Election, have sought to make as much as possible of this case for political expediency.
Might I ask this question? Is not a Minister of the Government, in his capacity as such, and as the representative of his constituency, entitled to express his opinion of the tactics of the Opposition when making a speech? I say that is what he did; I am convinced he did. The evidence is in the speech, in the verbatim report. I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) who, very naturally, takes on himself the right to report on the Floor of the House what the local Press and those keen supporters of his said was said. I do not expect the Opposition even to believe what keen supporters say was said. I prefer to look at the verbatim report and I am satisfied that the actual notes of the speech and the actual verbatim report of the speech, would remove any doubt at all that what the Secretary of State for War was speaking about was Tory tactics on the Floor of the House of Commons when the Schuman proposals were debated.
If it is any consolation to the Opposition, and it should be some consolation to His Majesty's Government, I can tell them here and now, that the men of that particular industry, the steel workers—and I believe I could claim the right to speak for them if they were miners—are behind the Government in what they did and behind the Secretary of State for War who gave vent to his suspicions of what was

in the minds of people on the Continent They will support tooth and nail the attitude taken up by the Government and the Secretary of State. It may not be supported in Colchester, but come and test it in Middlesbrough, Swansea, Rotherham or Sheffield, or any steel and coal area.

Sir Herbert Williams: The hon. Member said something contradictory; on which point does he stand?' He said first it was in reference to the Tory Party and then in reference to people on the Continent.

Mr. Jones: I said nothing of the sort. When the OFFICIAL REPORT is read tomorrow the hon. Member, who is adept at putting words into people's mouths, will find that I said the steel workers of the country would be behind the Secretary of State in giving vent to his suspicion. If the hon. Member would read what is said or listen carefully, he would not need to interject, as he usually does, on matters of this description. We are so used to his interjections that we place little value on any of them.
This, of course, has raised a storm of conjecture and a storm of Press reports. The issue is whether this country under the suggested Schuman proposals will be more prosperous than it is at the moment, or less prosperous—[Interruption]—I am speaking on behalf of those men who are vitally engaged and whose bread and butter is involved. I think it is going too far to suggest we should now debate the Schuman proposals, but the Government have made it very clear, although the Opposition will not admit this, that they welcomed the proposals. But they would welcome them to a greater extent if they had detailed knowledge of what the Plan envisages. That is where the Government and the sponsors of the Plan part company.
As and when the Schuman proposals are clearly set down and His Majesty's Government find themselves in a position to take part, it will be in the interest of all concerned, steel workers on the Continent and in this country, that there shall be an international set-up in which the best interests of those whose primary concern is the production of coal and steel and things out of which they get their bread and butter are fully assured. I fully assure the Government and my right hon. Friend that the attitude he has taken


up will receive the support of those men vitally concerned, the steel workers of Britain.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: I only wish to raise one point, and certainly not to raise a personal vendetta. If I thought there was a personal vendetta I would not be on my feet. I say to the Government benches that it was clearly the duty of any Opposition to raise this Debate. If hon. Members talk about personal vendettas, and say the Opposition are trying to exploit a particular individual or personal situation, they can have absolutely no conception of the effect of the speech of the Secretary of State for War, following on what has been called the "Dalton Brown Book," on the Continent of Europe and in the United States of America. It was absolutely essential that the position should be clarified at the earliest possible moment.
I do not intend to consider the application of the particular word "plot," one way or another. I find it a little difficult to believe that the Secretary of State for War sincerely believes that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and myself, both of whom spoke rather strongly in the Schuman Debate, are deeply engaged in an underground plot to enslave the workers of Europe. If he does believe that, I can only say it really is not true. That is not the purpose of the exercise.

Mr. Strachey: What I said they were engaged in was a plot to defeat the Government, which is quite a simple thing.

Mr. Boothby: I cannot accept that. I think the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that the word "plot," read in the context of his Colchester speech, was one of the mildest epithets he applied to the Schuman Plan. His speech was a bitter uncompromising attack on the Schuman Plan, and upon the motives of all those who support that Plan. That is the real issue of this Debate, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can deny it—the fact that the speech was a bitter attack on the Schuman Plan as such, and on the motives of those who support the plan. I believe the Secretary of State for War holds these views quite sincerely, and extremely strongly: and I deeply regret it.
The only thing I want to say is that we would be under an illusion, and the country would be under an illusion, if anyone thought the Secretary of State is a lone voice crying in the wilderness. At Colchester he gave expression to views which I firmly believe are fully shared and supported by a substantial majority of hon. Members opposite—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and the cheers we heard this afternoon are further evidence of that fact. I think the Secretary of State made a great mistake in withdrawing anything, or bringing in Tory tactics at all. He would have been quite a popular figure on his side if he had stuck where he was. But what humbug and mockery is now made of that Motion which the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked us to pass the other day welcoming this plot against the workers. This makes that vote a complete sham.

Mr. N. H. Lever: What about the sham and humbug on the hon. Member's side?

Mr. Boothby: Those of us on this side of the House who did not welcome it abstained from voting. If hon. and right hon. Members opposite are prepared to say, and think that this matter is of no great importance, I would quote to them two sentences from an article which appeared in yesterday's "Herald-Tribune" by Walter Lippmann, who not even the Secretary of State for War would deny is a great friend of this country, and most influential in the affairs of the United States of America, and who no one can say is engaged in a plot against the workers. After paying tribute to the Prime Minister, and saying that he was perfectly open in saying he was not prepared to participate at this stage, Mr. Lippmann goes on:
The plan has enemies who go beyond a refusal to participate. They wish it to fail, and one must count on their using their influence, which is considerable among the German and French Socialists to work against it.
He then says:
It is not too much, I believe, to say that in the Schuman Plan lies Europe's hope of salvation, and not improbably the world's best chance of avoiding a global war.
That view is widely and deeply held in the United States of America, I think by a great majority of the Congress. It is also widely and deeply held in Europe,


and certainly very sincerely held by me. I think that at this moment, when it is absolutely imperative to build up the strength of this country, and when the Secretary of State for War is responsible for the Army and in some measure for the defence of Western Europe, anything he says to diminish our strength is something of a tragedy, and it is a very great danger. I believe that he is deeply opposed to any form of European integration or co-operation—

Mr. Strachey: No.

Mr. Boothby: —unless on a rigidly Socialist basis. That goes for 90 per cent. of the party opposite, to whose real views he was giving expression. So long as they are in power we shall never get any kind of effective European co-operation; and, in failing to get that, we shall incur the growing hostility in the United States. We are being driven, at the present time, into a position of most perilous isolation.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: How deeply the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) must regret the course of this Debate today! I am not sure whether or not he was in the House to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that so far as he was concerned he was not discussing the Schuman Plan at all but was merely discussing what appears to me and I believe to most of us on this side of the House to be a purely personal point of the baser sort. I intend to deal with that question.
I was shocked and surprised to hear right hon. and learned Gentlemen taking the line that was taken both by the right hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) and the right hon. and learned Leader of the Liberal Party. Perhaps my view of human nature is rather kinder than is theirs, but I certainly do not believe it to be any less true, and when I hear someone rise and say, "These are the words I spoke, this is the speech I made, it took me 30 minutes to deliver, I measured the notes which I gave to the Press and they would have taken 15 minutes to deliver," I am strongly inclined to accept that statement. I am inclined to accept the story of a man whom all of us have known in this House for a long time. When it is supported, as it is in this case, by the discrepancy between the length of the notes and the

length of the speech, I am bound to say that I see no difficulty whatever in accepting it.

Mr. C. Davies: The very point I made was that what the notes said was much more important than the actual speech, that they were deliberately prepared and handed to the Press and were more important than the actual words which the right hon. Gentleman used.

Mr. Mitchison: In that case the right hon. and learned Gentleman would perhaps let us know clearly whether he does or does not accept what the Secretary of State for War stated that he said at Colchester.

Mr. Davies: I based my remarks on the notes which were handed to the Press, and for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible.

Mr. Mitchison: I am exceedingly glad to hear that the Leader of the Liberal Party accepts what was said by my right hon. Friend. In that respect he differs violently from those Members of the Tory Party who have declined to accept what my right hon. Friend has said, and in my view have dishonoured themselves more than the Secretary of State for War by so doing.
I wish to give another reason. It is not merely the length of the notes as compared with the length of the speech upon which I base my views. I have read, as many other Members of this House may have done, the sentences which the Press Association gave out originally. I do not expect the party opposite to accept what I say, if they will not accept what the Secretary of State for War has said, but I can only say that I looked at it and I said to myself "Something has gone wrong here"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—that is rather cheap—"something has been omitted, and it is quite obvious that 'plot' refers to what immediately follows and not to what goes before."
Let me tell the House why I say that. What was said about the "plot"?
Labour had only of course to expose this plot in order to defeat it.
That is very appropriate language for the tactics of the Opposition, but I suggest that it is wholly inappropriate language in which to talk about "defeating" the Schuman Plan in this House, let alone to talk about defeating it by a Motion


which in its terms welcomed it. I cannot see how anyone who had looked at those words and compared them with the Motion and with what actually happened in this House could possibly read the word "plot" in that sentence as referring to the Schuman Plan. I concluded that something had been omitted.
I had not then seen but I subsequently saw the heading in the notes which had been omitted in the original Press report. That shows quite clearly what the omission was. What had been omitted was some reference taking the form of the heading in the notes and the sentences which my right hon. Friend has mentioned today—some reference to a change of subject from the Schuman Plan to the Debate in this House. There undoubtedly was such a change. The only question is whether it came before or after that sentence I have quoted. I say with confidence that when one looks at what the sentence was there can be no possible doubt that the change of subject came before it and not after it.
That is all I have to say on the purely personal question, but there is another matter that arises today. It has been said that it is the duty of the Opposition to bring up a matter of this sort. I wish I could regard it as a matter of duty to bring it up and to bring it forward in the way in which it has been brought forward today, particularly by the Leader of the Opposition. I do not see what public duty was served. On the contrary, I think that a considerable disservice was rendered to the position of this country and to the delicate relations which now exist between ourselves and other European countries on the exceedingly important matter of the Schuman Plan, bearing in mind that this speech, as recorded in practically every paper, was ambiguous and was a speech which gave no clear indication one way or the other.
Had the Opposition really been paying regard to their duty to the country and to the country's position in Europe, they would have been very wise to leave matters where they were. I cannot see that their purpose or this Debate, viewed from this point of view, takes matters any further than they were. I come to what I really believe was the purpose of this Debate. In the Debate on the Motion about the Schuman Plan the Opposition found that they had got them-

selves into a very considerable difficulty. They did not want to oppose the Schuman Plan nor did the Government. They could only suggest that the Government ought to have taken part in the discussions on the Schuman Plan on a condition upon which it was perfectly clear that it was impossible for the Government to take part in those discussions.
The hopeless inconsistency and illogicality of that position emerged very clearly the other day. The substance and the main point of the speech of my right hon. Friend at Colchester was the treatment which my right hon. Friend gave to that one condition which the French authors of the Plan regarded as essential for even a discussion of the Schuman Plan. That one condition was the constitution of a supra-national authority which, so far as we can see and judge, would be appointed, it is true, by Governments but would not be responsible to them in any way and which would have powers going far beyond the production or even the marketing of iron and steel, extending in effect to a large measure of economic control of the countries adhering to that Plan.
It seems to me perfectly consistent and perfectly proper to say that one welcomes the Schuman Plan in this sense, as a plan for the co-operation of Lorraine ore and Ruhr coal, of France and Germany in that respect; that one welcomes it warmly as a real contribution towards peace between those two countries; that one would like to see it extend further to cover neighbouring coal and ore fields in Belgium and Luxemburg; and at the same time to say that so far as this country is concerned, we, who have other vital interests, cannot possibly go into that plan unless the character of the authority controlling it is different from that originally proposed. And if it is a case of going into discussions about that plan, then those discussions must include the character of the controlling authority.
This very day we have had an announcement in this House of a major step towards unity in Western Europe, a step so vastly important that I am surprised that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby) was able to get up today to make his criticisms and comments on the Government's efforts towards unity in Europe. This Government has done more to put that into


practical effect than was ever thought of or attempted by any Government of the Tory Party. Today it has had a singular success and surely this is the last and the most inappropriate moment to accuse them of having failed in that respect.
But we do insist on one condition, and surely we are right and justified in insisting upon it. It is that the democracy for which after all we all stand in this country, and for which this country has fought and suffered, should, when it comes to international affairs, be extended to them just as it is applied in this our own country. We believe that. for the present at any rate, the extension of that effective democracy to international affairs means that the conduct in international fields must rest largely in the hands of the Governments who are directly responsible to the people of the country; and that neither a super-national authority, nor some remoter and more ineffectively elected body can possibly combine the demands and requirements of democracy on the one hand and internationalism on the other.
I sit for a constituency which includes a large number of iron and steel workers, and I say that when my right hon. Friend was objecting, as he was objecting, to the autocratic and unacceptable character of the power given to that international body, his objections would I am sure be those of the people most actively engaged in iron and steel production. Are the iron and steel works at Corby to be shut down some fine day because an irresponsible and undemocratic body, national or international, thinks they ought to be?
Therefore, I personally have not the least doubt that my right hon. Friend has given to this House today the truthful and accurate account I should expect from him of what was said at Colchester. I cannot for a moment accept that that personal point has been raised by the Opposition as a matter of duty. I think it was raised as a matter of spite. On the substantial question of the attitude of this country towards the Schuman Plan, I hope I speak for others, as I certainly do for myself, in saying that we welcome it most warmly as a contribution to peace between France and Germany and the iron and steel and coal (interests in those countries. Let them set

up their own authority and make the most they can of it. But if we are required to go into it in this country without other, and I venture to say at least equally important, interests in other parts of the world, then we can only go in on the basis of the effective democratic control which we require in the affairs of our country, and insist on it more than ever when it comes to international action.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope I can be very short, and the more because the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) made, much better than I can, very largely the speech which I should have wished to make. I think there are one or two things still left to say, and I hope the House will forgive me if I try to say them. I do not want to talk about the Schuman Plan. I hope I may be acquitted of any very excessive passion for anything called a plan or in particular for the Schuman Plan, and I hope that somebody will not say it is my excessive passion either for M. Schuman or his Plan that leads me to speak.
Nor do I wish to pursue what is called a personal vendetta. So far as I am concerned, of the Ministers of the last five years, I would wish to see every one of them destroyed, politically, on the earliest possible occasion. And so far as I have been able to distinguish between them personally I am bound to say that those selected by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister for the Service jobs seem to me to be in a bracket in which it is quite impossible to discriminate. I have no wish therefore to pursue a personal vendetta; and I hope I may indicate what does seem to me the importance of the matter.
The importance of the matter seems to me to be, one, the doctrine of Cabinet solidarity and all that. I hope I may be forgiven for an excessive, even pedantic attachment to that, from the expounding of which I have during a fairly long life earned a tolerable living. I think the whole doctrine of Cabinet solidarity has been so riddled in the last 15 years—and especially the last five years—that if a doctrine by being riddled could lose its limbs, it would now be on its last legs. I think that it is most peculiarly important that that doctrine


should be maintained in the fields of defence and foreign policy, because any chance there may be of any amount of genuineness of consent and assent between the two sides of the House on those great matters—and I have seen dissent on those great matters do things to my country and to practically every one of my friends over and over again, from 1911 onwards, which I do not wish to see done again—any chance of real genuine consent and concord between the two sides of the House in those matters depends at least on the Government itself being within itself in agreement and in concord. Therefore, I think that is a matter of first-rate importance.
The second matter which I wish to discuss, which seems to me a little less important perhaps, but not unimportant, is whether it really is fitting for a man who could have made this speech in either form suggested, either in the form of the handout and the form in which, on that basis, it got into the Press or, secondly, in the form which it now takes here, with the glosses the right hon. Gentleman has put on it, the question is whether such a man is fit to serve His Majesty in high office; and if it be personal to say "No" to that, then my argument is personal. Incidentally, I have one slight sympathy with him. He must often have thought in the words of a certain classical character whose name for the moment escapes me:
Not by such help, not with these defenders
because there has not been a speech from behind him which has not made nonsense of his and his right hon. Friend's defence—not one
The hon. Gentleman who spoke by the Gangway kept on talking about a verbatim report. Is not the right hon. Gentleman's case that there is no verbatim report? The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said that his speech as reported left the grossest ambiguities. I think I am getting his words right. He said that the Opposition should have left it alone at that. That seems a little odd. I could go through all the other speeches. There was not one speech which did not do him more harm than good. Therefore, even if I do not do much harm to him, I think that he is in a pretty hopeless condition by now
Now I come to the question of what he did say. I do not know if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite ever use dictionaries, I never trust myself to be sure of the meaning of a word. If I get time to check it, I never trust myself to be quite sure that I have got a word right. I, therefore, went and looked up the word, "plot." It is a very attractive exercise. I recommend it. I was rather surprised to find how extraordinarily close it is to the word "plan." I will not bother to go through the history meaning of the two words. The words are extraordinarily close in meaning, and where they diverge as so often happens in the English language, there are two words which are almost exact synomyms. One of them gradually acquires a commendatory sense, and one always uses it when one wants to be kind; the other acquires a damnatory sense. That gradually happened with "plot" and "plan."
When "plot" had acquired this condemnatory sense it came to mean "a plan secretly contrived with some wicked or illegal purpose." I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to read the speech, the speech before we come to the right hon. Gentleman's alleged interpolation. I say "alleged" not at all to accuse him of deliberate falsehood, but I say that because he himself was very careful to say no more than that he added words somewhat to this effect. Presumably, therefore, his recollection, even if only subconsciously, permitted him to remember the words in the form in which they could most help his argument. We are all human—even Secretaries of State.
I suppose that is what happened; but I ask hon. Gentlemen to look at the words, before they come to that interpolation, and to see how this thing is described, "this thing" being the Schuman Plan. It is a "plan"; it is, somewhere else, a "purpose"; a little after there is a distinction between the "plan" and the "real plan," the "purpose" and the "real purpose"; there are "schemes," "designs," "under the guise of something or other." "bogus," and "plot."
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering and the rest of them are astonished that this wicked word "plot" should be attached to Schuman instead of to us, the Tories. But when you have been saying that it is a plan but not the


real plan, it is a purpose but not the real purpose, it is a scheme, it has been designed under the guise of something or other, it is bogus, is it wicked for me to take the wild flight of exaggeration and to say that it is a plot? As to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering and his stuff about the appropriateness of words, I should like, if he will permit me, to address a few sentences to him. First of all, about the speech having taken only 15 minutes to read over and 30 minutes to pronounce; the difference in the time it takes to read over a speech and the time it takes to pronounce a speech, especially to a large open-air audience, is almost as great as the difference between the apparent time it seems to take, to you, to make the speech and the time it seems to take to the audience, when you make it.
I am very much amazed indeed that anyone so practised or, if there is such a word, so logorhoeic as the right hon. Gentleman, who has poured forth with pen and tongue so many and such varied words over so long a period, should have thought of using that argument. And I was almost amazed that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering should have thought of repeating it, but then I reflected that perhaps he had never had an audience. That argument really will not do. Nor will the argument about the words interpolated, taking them at the right hon. Gentleman's own recollection, which he admits to be highly imperfect. Is not that admitted?

Mr. Strachey: The words I used were, "I have a clear recollection."

Mr. Pickthorn: "The words he used." He really ought to learn to think straighter if he wants us to take him as straightforward. The words he used, were that he had a clear recollection of introducing somewhat to this effect. Those, I think, were the words he used.

Mr. Strachey: "The words were to the following effect."

Mr. Pickthorn: Well, we shall all see HANSARD tomorrow; and I undertake to say that the right hon. Gentleman in his speech would not pin himself to knowing exactly what words he used, and that is what I am telling the House now.

Mr. Mitchison: Of course not.

Mr. Pickthorn: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering was not there, and and he would not either. Now we are that much further on. But even taking the right hon. Gentleman's words, and I hope that he will be kind to me and remind me if I have got them wrong, because my notes are in rather a muddle, I think he said, "I now turn to what has been happening in the House. The Tories tried to bring down the Government on this issue." "This issue" is the things I have been reading out to you—plot, purpose, real purpose, scheme, bogus and all the rest of it. "The Tories tried to bring down the Government on that issue." That could not be a plot.

Mr. Nally: Why not?

Mr. Pickthorn: It really will not do for the hon. and learned Member for Kettering or the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) to say that that was the plot. There is no plot about the Opposition putting down a Motion and saying, "We will divide against you." What was the plot? There is no plot in that. There really could not have been any plot in that.
The third argument on the actual matter of the words which I ask the right hon. Gentleman to attend to is this. It is admitted by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering and it is admitted by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) that they read the speech with something approaching consternation or at least with bewilderment. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering said that it was highly ambiguous—

Mr. Mitchison: Not the same thing.

Mr. Pickthorn: The hon. and learned Member is not the same Gentleman as the hon. Member for Attercliffe.
There was no doubt at all that considering the speech as written or noted in the handout and the report based thereon, the speech was, to put it mildly, ambiguous and that, to many, including Socialist, friends of the Schuman Plan it was much worse than ambiguous. There is no doubt about that. By the right hon. Gentleman's account, when he read it himself, when he got to that point his subconscious monitor or guardian angel said, "Oi." That was why at that point he stuck in these words.
Now what I say is that, taking it from that account, anybody who could do that, and so badly, is not fit to hold office. Anybody who did that after even subconsciously, or unconsciously he had had it brought to his attention that it certainly looked as if the Schuman Plan had been described as a plot, that its purpose was different from the real purpose, or the plan different from the real plan, that it was under a guise—anyone who had it brought near to the bottom of his subconscious that he was—

Mr. Albu: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Ministers should be chosen by psychiatrists?

Mr. Pickthorn: I am not suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman should be a Minister. Whether Ministers are removed by psychiatrists or by a vote of this House, I am prepared to accept the psychiatrists, but being kind I would prefer it to be this House, as I think that it would be nicer for the Ministers.
Anybody who came to do that point and said this is the way the issue stood and that then the Tories tried to bring down the Government, said that there was some plot in putting down a Motion and then the Government properly indicating that they would regard it as a Motion of Censure—to pretend that there is anything there that can be described as a plot and enables the speaker to get away from the whole gist and substance of this intolerable speech—to make that distinction, as on the part of the right hon. Gentleman—is, when he is, I was going to say fighting, but I do not know what he would like me to call it, but anyway doing something for his political life, that is some excuse for him. With the defence proffered by the Prime Minister, quite honestly, making all allowances for his pre-occupations and for the handicap and exacerbation which has certainly been put upon him by his surroundings, I think from him the defence was beyond all bearing.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Nally: I had the honour to be elected to this House in 1945. However the first time I came here was in 1926. At that time, there was a rather convenient arrangement whereby, in the autumn of 1926, those coal miners who were still locked out and refused to be

bullied back, sent a large number of their children, hundreds of them, here to stay in London with Socialist friends. I had the pleasure of coming to this House for three days or so and going round with a senior civil servant who attained great distinction later, and who brought me into the House. I was aged 10, and I had been brought up to believe that, no matter who ran it, this place was important. They were right.
Not in this present House, but in the other place subsequently destroyed, the senior civil servant showed me round, showed me where the great sat and told me lots of things. One of the things he told me to take objection to and to try to avoid was shabby, pseudo-dialectic; the sort of snobbery which, in this place, is apparently regarded as clever, but, in front of the average audience of ordinary or working-class people, would be regarded as "putting on a front," the sort of thing which the average young Tory candidate tries I hope not to do. If I had to provide an object lesson to any young Tory candidate—
and some of them are friends of mine— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I shall be going into that before I have finished, and give the Opposition one or two shocks about this business. I was saying that, if I had to give that young Tory candidate an example of how not to make a speech to decent people, I would provide him with the hon. Member who spoke immediately before me as an object lesson of what not to say to ordinary honest people who believe that one is sincere.

Mr.BeverleyBaxter: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to put this—

Earl Winterton: Sit down.

Mr. Baxter: I will interrupt. Surely the basic difference between this House and a public audience is that this is not a public audience and that the way of speaking here is different. That is all.

Mr. Nally: I always have the hope that the hon. Gentleman, when he is writing about me, will do precisely what he did when he was supposed to be present at a public meeting, for which he was paid a professional fee, and in which he described as mine, a speech which I never made, but which somebody else made, and all because he went to the


meeting late. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am a journalist and I would say to him that he must never confuse two things. If he rebukes me for confusing things—and he is a much more experienced reporter than I am—I shall be bound to say that he is the only journalst I know in the House who attended a public meeting, mistook a Member of Parliament on the platform for somebody else, and reported the meeting over two and a half columns in a prominent London evening newspaper.

Mr. Baxter: That was a plot.

Mr. Nally: If there is to be one indictment against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, it is that he used the word "plot." Probably it should have been ascribed to what was mere stupidity. It might well be that while I think it was a dirty trick to describe me as somebody else, the Secretary of State for War might easily, in his speech, instead of saying that it was a plot, have described it simply as stupidity. While the Opposition say that they are in favour of the unity of Europe and other things, the real fact is that they do not know what they are talking about.
Let us come to the test. The longest speech I have made in this House, up to the speech I am now proposing to make—[Interruption.] The elongated streak of misery who interrupts, the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) —a political streak of misery—I do not regard as being capable of giving a definition of anything. The longest speech I have made in this House was one of 14 minutes. I shall exceed it in this case. What is the case in point? These things are involved. There is a Press report—that is agreed—and words which have been taken down by somebody. The other thing involved is not the Schuman Plan, because there never was a Schuman Plan, there never has been one and there is not one now. It is a set of proposals which have been advanced temporarily under the auspices of the Foreign Secretary of France, a very great and distinguished man.
Let us test this matter. How many hon. Members of the Opposition, who have now gone into this song and dance and done their little act for their local papers. know anything at all about what

happens when a Minister, even their own Minister, goes into a constituency to make a speech and where his notes are delivered beforehand? As I look round this massive array of talent opposite to us, there are, I think, possibly two people who can write shorthand. How many of them have ever taken down a report in shorthand? How many of them know anything whatever about appearing at a gathering where there is a Cabinet Minister or junior Minister and taking down his speech?
If I may say so with great respect to the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), for whom I have a great regard—I am not being clever; I only did that as an illustration of the way in which I had to follow him about once when he was in Lancashire and I was a junior reporter. How many hon. Members opposite have the faintest idea how a report is made when there is a handout from a Ministerial Department? I will give way to any hon. Member who knows that.

Mr. Hurd: I have done it professionally for 15 years.

Mr. Nally: The hon. Member is making a mistake. To the best of my knowledge—and I will give way if I am wrong—he has never in his life worked on the basis of taking down a speech and then putting over the "take." He has done precisely what I did in my younger days. He has worked for a trade weekly where he took down the notes in shorthand and then had the time to compare them with the speech that was handed out beforehand.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I was working for a daily newspaper, and still am today.

Mr. Nally: The hon. Gentleman really must not think, when we enter into serious Debates like this, that we come unarmed. All I will say is that the hon. Gentleman has never turned in a hard copy job with a dateline on the same day in the whole of his life, although he is a very competent reporter.

Mr. Hurd: That is a monstrous suggestion. I should know best; I say I have.

Mr. Nally: It does not matter, because even the best journalist of the lot, the man who was an editor and who occupied a


place of distinction, did not rise. If I may say so, when I am talking to the hon. Gentleman opposite, I am not talking to the star reporter of the "National Farmers' Weekly," the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd); I am talking to a real reporter, the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter), and he did not rise.
Now I come to the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) who has just left, and who, I am sorry to say, got up and showered abuse on the Secretary of State for War. Hon. Members opposite adopt a curious attitude in all matters that involve European unity. 1, for instance, would like to see Italian strawberries coming to this country. They are well packed by a co-operative marketing associations. My wife could buy them at a reasonable price. But what happens when these strawberries come on to the market? Who objects? We do not. They are packed by marketing associations who pay decent trade union wages. Who objects to their coming here? Hon. Members opposite. Who objects to our taking white fish from Norway or Denmark packed by people receiving trade union wages; fish that comes to this country in perfect condition? The people who object are the phoney exponents of European unity on the benches opposite. Since 1945, every objection raised to any European country importing agricultural produce to this country has come from the champions of European unity on the other side of the House.
Now I come to what I hope will annoy the Opposition even more; I come to the campaign of vituperation, vilification, lying and cheating that has pursued my right hon. Friend from three months after he became Minister of Food. I propose to go into detail. We have our conventions in this House, and we assume that the speeches made by hon. Members should be in accordance with the traditions of this House. One assumed that the speech of the hon. Member for Carlton would have been in accordance with those traditions. The Secretary of State for War, is no particular political friend of mine. When I was a youngster of 16 or 17, I was a member of the National Committee of the Labour Party and the League of Youth. The right hon. Gentleman then rightly occupied a place of great importance among the younger members of the Labour Party, and he and I were in

disagreement. He was probably right and I was probably wrong; 1 do not know. Anyway, we had our quarrel.
Now let us come to what has happened. During the war he was charged with the task, not only in this country, but in America and Canada—and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition knew it perfectly well because the Secretary of State was one of the 10 key public relations personnel with which he had something to do—of explaining to the world what our policy was. When the Secretary of State for War was Under-Secretary of State for Air at the beginning of 1945, there was no objection whatsoever. A lot of things happened after that. He became Minister of Food_ [Interruption.] I warn you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that this is the longest speech I have made in this House, and I propose. with your permission, to make it. The accusation levelled against the Secretary of State is based on what the Press said about him.
Let me give an opposite case which happened within the last two years. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who I am sorry is not in his place, was speaking at a gathering even greater than that which my right hon. Friend addressed, and at which he made a long speech. At that gathering the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was not himself. He uttered a phrase referring to political events, and to a member of the present Government which, even from the point of view of the average reporter representing a paper of the lowest standards, was quite unreportable. Is that perfectly clear? I really know what I am talking about. [HON. MEMBERS: "We do not"] Hon. Members will in a minute; I spend most of my time teaching Tories the facts of life.
At that particular demonstration there were far more qualified national paper men present than at the gathering addressed by my right hon. Friend. Every national newspaper was represented with the exception of the "Daily Worker," which was. presumably. represented through an agency. The "Daily Herald," was represented, and, as I say, all the other national papers were represented but none of them printed that phrase.
It is true that the "Manchester Guardian" had a slant on it two or three days later. The whole Press agreed, quite


rightly, that the indecent phrase of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, should not be reported. I entirely agree. [Horn. MEMBERS: "What what the phrase?"] This happens to be an assembly where I follow the standard laid down by the hon. Member for Carlton, and it is the sort of phrase I would not repeat. I would smack my two boys on the wrist if they used it. It is the sort of phrase that is rather unfortunate. Every reporter there knew that it had been used by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. Every reporter knew perfectly well that it was not the sort of thing that ought to be reported. It was only the "Manchester Guardian" that had a brief reference to it later.
The Secretary of State for War is no friend of mine, but, he is a friend of mine when I find him subject to a bitter, dirty, vindictive campaign to which the Leader of the Opposition, in the shabby twilight of a great career, lends himself. When the Secretary of State for War goes to Malaya and goes out to a unit—as I have done and as many hon. Members, not themselves skilled soldiers, have done—we have five Questions down in this House from Members of the Opposition as to why he went out with a fighting patrol. Every reporter and newspaper correspondent, every young Minister, did that during the war. They went out to see what it was like.
I remember a time during the war when there was a flight of a plane over the Atlantic. The right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) was then, I think, in charge of the Ministry of Information. The newspaper office in which I worked, among others, received a beautiful full-platephoto of "Winston at the Controls," and the caption read "Two miles (or something) above the Atlantic." There was a picture of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition above the Atlantic at the controls of a bomber. I do not object, because I was not in the bomber
.
It is damnably unfair, however, that we should have had those five Questions in this House when it is remembered that time and time again, we, including the present Secretary of State for War, in our not terribly important capacities, were

anxious about the safety of the present Leader of the Opposition during the war. I remember a time on the banks of the Rhine when he slipped badly and it took three of the boys, I remember, to pull him up.
Suppose the Secretary of State for War had not done what he did, in going out with a normal patrol that was operating to approximately 10 miles from where he was. There would have been Questions in the House, asking why, he as Secretary of State did not see the troops in Malaya in action. The Opposition want it both ways. If the Secretary of State for War goes to Malaya and sees the troops in action and goes with them, then we have nasty Questions down as to what he was doing. If he had not gone with them we would have had equally nasty Questions as to why he did not see the troops in action.
The Secretary of State for War—and I am not referring now to "Evening Standard" headings—has been subjected to the dirtiest, most vicious and shabbiest political campaign that anyone has ever been subject to since a little matter that the Leader of the Opposition would know more about than I do. That was before World War I—a matter affecting wireless and radio shares, or something, that affected somebody else.
We anticipated, and we were so informed by various Members of the Opposition, that this would be a matter that would be dealt with in a dignified way after one statement by the Secretary of State for War earlier today. It has not been like that. When we are weighing the quality of the Secretary of State for War, or his services, we have to weigh up, equally, the status of the Opposition. The Secretary of State for War, for whose gifts and courage I have a great regard, may be right or wrong in the post he has. I think he ought to hold it—he is an efficient Minister.
All I say to the Opposition is that, judging by recent performances, the the sooner they get rid of the right Gentleman their Leader and replace him by an abler and calmer man, the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), the better it will be for democracy in this country and for good government of our country in war and peace alike.

6.56 p.m.

Earl Winterton: Though no one might believe it after the 46 years 1 have spent in this House, I am, in fact, a very kindly man. I think the kindest observation I can make about the speech of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) is that its purpose was as obscure as its language. No one, from the very beginning, could gather what he was driving at I may say that the look of inspissated gloom which has been on the face of the Secretary of State for War ever since my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) made his speech, was not only not removed but was increased by the astonishing effort that the hon. Member for Bilston made to defend him.
I should like to say just this one thing Coming from the mouths of 99 per cent. of the hon. or right hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite, the most offensive reference which he made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) would have been so resented that the whole of our side would have shouted him down But, coming from the hon. Member for Bilston. people said. "Well, it is not really worth while." Odd as it may seem to the hon. Member for Bilston and those behind him, there are more serious issues in this Debate than the hon. Member or any hon. Gentleman opposite has put.
The issue is great and grave in regard to the conduct of the Minister and affects, I am afraid, to some degree, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford pointed out in his admirable speech, the position of the Prime Minister. I should like to put very shortly three points. I know the Secretary of State for War would not deny that I have never come into conflict with him over matters appertaining to his present office. In fact we have had some very friendly discussions. He was good enough on one occasion to say that I had been helpful in a certain matter, and I was prompted to say that he had also helped in a spirit of unity. I have no personal feelings against him whatever. I am not concerned with personal feelings. I am concerned with the issues put in some of the most brilliant speeches I have ever heard in this House by two of my hon. Friends and by the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby.
I want to put my three points very shortly and succinctly. The first point is this, and it is very important. I speak as one, who all the time that he has been in this House, has been connected with the Press, and I may say in egoistic parenthesis that I was at onetime the editor of a weekly newspaper. I think I was the youngest editor in London. 1 do not think there can be much objection from hon. Members opposite to what I am about to say. There has been a tendency which has grown in recent years for Ministers and Members to deny no doubt quite honestly but mistakingly, having said something in a speech in the country which all the weight of evidence shows that they have said. There has been more than one instance of that.
I would pay a tribute to a newspaper with which I have no connection, the "Daily Mail," for an article which it printed, I think, on Saturday last, saying that there was great resentment, not confirmed to journalists of any one party, at this tendency. The defenders of the accuracy of reporting in the Press, the standard of which is higher here than anywhere in the world cannot under the rules of this House say "The hon. Member is plainly not speaking the truth." The newspapers themselves have to be careful not to offend the privileges of this House by direct imputation. When the unfortunate reporters concerned are most unjustly blamed for reporting the truth it does not improve the relations between this House and the Fourth Estate.
Several of the supporters of the Secretary of State for War have propounded this question to us on this side of the House: Do you deny the truth of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman? Do you, in other words, think that he is not speaking the truth? I will give my version. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman chinks that he said what he says he did. I am certain he has made a sincere mistake. and I say—I challenge any hon. Member opposite to deny this—that the whole weight of evidence not only of the Press Association but of other reporters, and including others at the meeting, is that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. That is the whole weight of evidence.
I will come to my second point. There are such things as the ethics of resignation. Many of us on both sides of the House—I myself, for example in my


humble capacity—have had the painful experience in the past, but one which, no doubt, was good for us, of having failed to satisfy this House as a whole or having failed to satisfy public opinion outside, and considered it our duty to place our resignation in the hands of the Prime Minister. There are equal instances, some of them doing great honour to the hon. Members concerned, on the benches opposite.
What should be the criterion of these cases? In what respects is the position of the right hon. Gentleman relevant to this question which I have just propounded, of the ethics of resignation? I would say that he has utterly failed to satisfy public opinion that he did say what he says he said. In other words, despite all the special pleading by some hon. Members opposite, he has failed to satisfy public opinion that his reference was to the Tory Party and not to the Schuman Plan.
But, as was pointed out in one of the most admirable speeches that I have heard in this House for a long time, by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), far more serious is the fact that his speech was utterly out of consonance with the line taken by the Government spokesman on the Schuman Plan; in other words, the Secretary of State for War made a speech in the country which was in opposition to the opinion of the Government of which he is a member, on a major issue affecting our relations with almost every foreign country in the world—not only European countries but indirectly the United States.
I would interpolate this observation, though it is perhaps slightly out of place at this point in my speech. When before in the history of alleged mistakes made in the report of a speech has a handout been given out by the Private Secretary of the Minister? There was no correction made in the handout; nothing was done until attention was called to the matter by Questions in the House. That is a most damning indictment against the right hon. Gentleman, and, I must say, in a secondary degree against the Prime Minister for permitting the right hon. Gentleman to continue as a Member of the Government.

Mr. Nally: Mr. Nally rose—

Earl Winterton: No, I am not going to give way. I will finish my speech. As I have said before, I have no feeling against the right hon. Gentleman. I was not one of those who joined in the attacks on him for what he did in Malaya or anywhere else, but I must end on this note, and I think nobody will disagree here. This country, the British Commonwealth and the world are confronted with a peril of international tension painfully reminiscent to me—I do not know if it is to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill)—of the days when he and I sat in this House in the late summer of 1914 and of 1939. [Interruption.] It is no use somebody making those noises. I happen to have
fought in the First World War—

Mr. Shurmer: I fought in the first war too, but not as an officer.

Earl Winterton: I have no doubt the hon. Member did. I say that there is a most horrible resemblance—

Mr. Shurmer: I was not in the air raid shelter either.

Earl Winterton: I am sure the hon. Gentleman was in the air raid shelter in the last war, and I give him commendation for doing so.

Mr. Shurmer: I was not in the air raid shelter.

Earl Winterton: I would like to assure the hon. Gentleman that I bear him no malice. Compared with the magnitude of the problem which we are discussing this evening, it does not seem to me to be important whether the hon. Gentleman was in the air raid shelter or not.
This Government needs all the support it can obtain from those most bitterly opposed to it in domestic affairs, if it is to play its part in trying to avoid the appalling catastrophe which is possible. We, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Woodford, and for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), have given most valuable support to that end, but we sometimes wonder whether, if we had been in office, we should have had quite the same measure of support that we have Given to the Government.
What an act of deliberate, feckless and reckless folly for a Minister in a defence Department to try to destroy this unity


by utterly unfounded allegations that the Schuman Plan was a Tory plot. What a mistake for him in his position to have made a speech which was in conflict with the policy of his own party. Perhaps he will reflect on this point before he leaves this assembly this evening, that no one, not even the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health—no Minister except himself has had the utter irresponsibility of making such a speech about a plan which, if put into operation, might mean the total alteration of the conditions in Western Europe.

WAR DAMAGE (LATE CLAIMS)

7.10 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I intend to turn the mind of the House to a different subject but one which, nevertheless, is of substantial importance. I want to make some reference to the problem of war damage claims. Hon. Members will have noticed that a number of us had a Motion on the Order Paper which has been withdrawn.

[That this House is gravely concerned at the number of claims for compensation by persons whose property suffered war damage, which have been rejected by the War Damage Commission because they were not lodged with the Commission within the prescribed time although, in many cases, the occurrence of damage can be confirmed from the records of the local authorities; and calls upon the Government to review these claims in order to reach a just and practicable settlement.]

I should like to explain why that action was taken. It was thought that it would be convenient to discuss this subject on the Adjournment and, under the Rules of the House, that would have been out of order had the Motion remained on the Paper. That was the sole reason for the action we took. In raising this issue I want to make it quite clear that I have no complaint whatsoever to make of the competence and courtesy of Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve, who was the first Chairman of the War Damage Commission, or Sir Robert Fraser, his successor. I do not wish to deal with the subject on that issue at all. My interest in this subject began a long time ago. As a matter of fact, it was some time in 1937 that a

group of Members was formed under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Anderson, then one of the Members for the City of London, for the purpose of urging upon the Government I think it was the Baldwin Government—the introduction of a system of air raid insurance. We were not successful in our efforts, but we continued them with the next Government and when the Coalition came into existence.

Again we were unsuccessful until late in 1940 or early in 1941—I have not looked up the exact date—when the Government were ultimately convinced that something had to be done about the problem of compensation for air raid damage and other damage due to warlike operations. The Bill which was introduced had rather a rough passage. I was one of those who helped to give it a rough passage, because in many respects it was an unsatisfactory Bill. It had to undergo many changes. Some hon. Members will recall the row we had about the chattels part of the scheme. There were also complications about liabilities in respect of ground rent and mortgage interest. I always thought that the scheme was imperfect because it made no provision for loss of rental value. If that provision had been made the problem of ground rent and the mortage interest would have vanished.

I remember, in those Debates, drawing attention to something which had happened the previous day in Croydon, where an elderly lady had been left eight houses by her husband; she lived in one and the rents from the others represented her income. The whole lot had been wiped out by a bomb the previous night but, under the scheme, she could get nothing until the property was restored. That struck me as a great hardship.

I am afraid that those hardships cannot now be covered. In any event, I could not urge a change in the law on this occasion and, in fact, I do not ask for a change in the law. What I seek is some change in the administration. Croydon, part of which I now represent, and which I formerly represented, suffered from two. serious periods of bombardment, one in the autumn of 1940, and the other in the summer and autumn of 1944, when we had the things which were popularly called "doodlebugs."

I think we had 148 of those in the borough of Croydon and the average damage per "doodlebug" was roughly this: the human casualties were comparatively light, as compared with the earlier bombing—one and a half killed; but 20 houses were completely demolished and 200 were damaged in varying degrees. When it was all over, 90 per cent. of the houses in the borough had suffered some kind of damage. Fortunately, we had the best fireman in Britain, who is now head of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, and he designed his scheme against fire, so that we escaped much of the damage which other places suffered because they had not organised themselves to deal with fire.

During the period of 1940, under the stimulus of the then Minister of Works, local authorities in all districts affected by that bombardment engaged a large number of men to do first-aid repairs. I think about 2,000 were sent into Croydon. I believe most of them voted against me in the General Election in 1945, because they thought I had sent them there. They should have voted against our present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; he sent them there, but they blamed me. They were on the register in 1945 and they had mainly come from Ireland. That is in passing, and it has nothing to do with tonight's Debate.

Because the Corporation sent men along to do the first-aid repairs people who lived in those houses said to themselves. "The Town Hall knows all about it; they have come to do a bit of the work and no doubt they will come to finish it later." Great numbers of these people never made any formal claim to the War Damage Commission. That is one of the major grievances. In addition, a good number of elderly people, quite rightly, had left Croydon and gone to live in some more salubrious parts of the world—Torquay, or somewhere else, according to their means. Often they were not aware for a considerable time that damage had occurred to property in which they were interested. In some cases, too, landlords thought that tenants had made the claim and in other cases tenants thought that the landlords had done so. I have found that in other cases both thought the property agent who looked after the property had taken action. Thus, in a vast number of cases notice was not given.

We all know that Government Departments have a most marvellous system of registration. They are so perfect that they always acknowledge a thing on a postcard, with a number on it, before they deal with it. The object of it is that they wish to lose nothing, but my experience is that they lose just as much as I do in my own office without any system at all. It is quite fantastic what gets lost in a Government Department. I am quite satisfied that the War Damage Commission must have had millions of communications and I have had letters in which both sides say that the other side did not answer a letter. I have not troubled to bring the letters with me today but there is a pile in my office. Just as in the previous Debate, both think that they are stating what happened. I am quite certain that lots of claims have not been met for that reason.

I know of a good many cases, too, where men were in the Services at the time the incident occurred. Sometimes they did not know about it for a considerable time. They assumed that their wives had made the claim and she had not. All sorts of things like that have occurred, but I will not enumerate them all because I can see from the nods of hon. Members on both sides that they have had the same kind of experience.

The Commission have said, and I have had quite a lot of correspondence about this since I was returned to the House to this effect: "We gave everybody a notice, and there were Press notices and B.B.C. notices about the final date." I am quite satisfied that a great many people never become conscious of that kind of communication. If we make an announcement in every newspaper tomorrow that if somebody fills in a coupon £5 will be sent to him, a lot of people will not fill it in, either because they are indifferent or because they think there might be a catch in it. The plain truth is that an enormous number of people in this country never become conscious of important announcements and, when the Commission say that they have made every kind of effort to tell people, I am satisfied that a great many people never became conscious of it and many who did said to themselves, "That is all right; they came round from the Town Hall and they will be coming round later to finish the job."

I think the problem of those people can be met administratively. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the custodian of the public purse, as we all are. Nobody is anxious to impose new burdens on the State, but this is very analogous to the case of pensions for Service men except that this is physical damage as distinct from personal damage. In both cases the compensation is a monetary compensation. Although none of us wishes to see a great new burden added to the burdens which the Chancellor of the Exchequer already imposes upon the rest of us, nevertheless that is no reason why justice should not be done—and I am satisfied that at the present time injustice is being done to a great many humble folk.

Those who are used to dealing with business and filling in forms, especially those who regularly employ professional people, generally have not suffered the amount of hardship which is suffered by the humbler folk, to whom filling up a form is a terrible job and to whom writing a letter to a Member of Parliament is a terrible job. Father takes his coat off and the family bottle of ink is sent for, and a great deal of blood, toil, sweat, and tears is spent before the task is finished. We all know how it is. I have had lots of letters about this matter, and other hon. Members have had, too, and I hope very much that as a result of this Debate something will be done. I have abstained deliberately from giving any specific personal examples, because I have not wanted to take up much time, because I know other hon. Members want to speak and I am a great believer in taking only a short time and letting others take part.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Morley: I do not think it is necessary to make a very long speech on this matter because the case for a further review of these claims for war damage compensation which have been turned down by the War Damage Commission on account of too late notification is, I think, very clear and cogent indeed. There must be thousands of people in this country who paid their contributions into the fund which was instituted in order that compensation might be paid in respect of war damaged property after the war whose property and hereditaments have undoubtedly suffered damage and who have not received any compensation at all from the War

Damage Commission on the ground that the loss was notified at too late a period.
Of course, there are a number of reasons, and quite understandable reasons, why the notifications of war damage were sent in after the time which had been laid down for the final notification by the War Damage Commission. The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), who made a very interesting and comprehensive speech on the matter, has referred to one reason which, I think, was a reason which affected a very great number of people and prevented them from sending in their notifications at the time which was laid down by the Commission, and that was the fact that the local authorities, in the first place, did first-aid repairs and notified the people who suffered from war damage that their damage had been registered in the offices of the local authorities.
A very great number of people thought that the fact that damage had been registered in the office of the local authority meant that they need take no further steps in notifying that damage. As a matter of fact, in some instances minor officials, at least, of the local authorities, by their statements to the people who suffered damage, rather encouraged that point of view.
I sent to the War Damage Commission a considerable number of cases and people who had notified their war damage to the local authority and thought that that notification was sufficient, and I had this reply from the Chairman of the War Damage Commission:
The fact that the local authority was aware of the damage and carried out certain repairs cannot he accepted as a sufficient reason for failure to notify the Commission at an earlier date of the occurrence of the damage. Local authorities did not act as agents of the Commission for the purpose of accepting notification and carrying out repairs.
So there is no doubt that a large number of people have been prevented from receiving compensation for damage which undoubtedly occurred to their property and hereditaments because they were quite naturally of the opinion that registration with the local authority was sufficient, and that no further notification was necessary.
Then there is the case already referred to by the hon. Member for Croydon,


East, of people who were absent from the property when the damage took place. There were cases of some men who were on active service, either in this country or abroad, when the damage took place, and did not learn of the damage until many months after it had occurred. There were also cases of people who had evacuated themselves with their families from bombed areas and were quite unaware their property had been bombed until a number of months later. There was quite a number of cases of very elderly people, nearing, perhaps, the end of their lives, who, in the circumstances, did not comply with all the formalities that were necessary.
There were cases of successive incidents. A house was bombed for the first time and damage inflicted, and the owner of the house notified the War Damage Commission in the proper manner. Then a second incident occurred, and the house was bombed for the second time; sometimes the house was bombed for the third time. The War Damage Commission laid it down that not only must they be informed of the first time the bombing occurred but that they must also be informed of the second or third occasion; and if there were no notifications of the second or third occasions compensation was paid on the repairs carried out for the damage done on the first occasion of the bombing, but no compensation paid for the repairs carried out after the second or third occasion on which bombing took place. I believe that there were actually instances in which the front part of the house was repaired because of the damage in the first incident, but the back part remained unrepaired because that damage was done in the second incident.
Then there were instances of people who bought property just after the war had ended and did not discover that there had been any war damage to the property until a month or two after they had bought it. These cases were sent up to the War Damage Commission. They took the view, caveat emptor. They said that the buyer should have satisfied himself when he bought the property that there was no war damage there, or that, if there had been war damage there, it had been notified to the War Damage Commission.
Those who remember the position in 1945 and 1946, and remember how difficult it was then to get any place in which to live, will realise that people who had the chance of buying a house at something like a reasonable rate at which they could afford jumped at the chance of buying a house and, perhaps, did not inquire as carefully as they should have done whether there was any war damage inside the house.
I represent one of the worst bombed towns in Great Britain. In Southampton we not only had a number of all-night, concentrated raids, but we also had a number of raids during the day-time. We also had a number of tip and run raids in which one or two planes would come over, drop a few bombs, and fly away again. At one period of the war we had more alarms in Southampton than any other part of the British Commonwealth except Malta. Altogether there were some 5,000 houses totally destroyed in Southampton by enemy action, and there was hardly a street in Southampton where some houses were not either destroyed or very severely damaged.
Therefore, I sent a number of cases of late notification to the War Damage Commission. Last year, I think, I sent nearly 300 cases of late notification up to the War Damage Commission, and there was no doubt, I think, that in all those 300 cases actual war damage had occurred. Of those 300 cases only about 10 were admitted by the War Damage Commission and repairs carried out and compensation paid.
The reason why these claims were not admitted was not that the War Damage Commission stated there was no truth in the statements that war damage had occurred. They did not question there had been war damage. What they said was that final notices had been given to the people concerned of the last date upon which a claim had to be made, first by means of advertisements in the local Press, and, secondly, by means of B.B.C. broadcasts.
With regard to the first method of giving notice, by advertisements in the local Press, in Southampton we have a very good local newspaper indeed, the "Southern Daily Echo." In fact, I think it is one of the best conducted local newspapers in the country. It has a fairly considerable circulation, but I


should say that out of 180,000 people in Southampton not more than 30,000 at most read that newspaper regularly. A very large number of people would have missed the advertisements telling them of the last date for notification to the War Damage Commission which were inserted in the "Southern Daily Echo."
So far as broadcasting notice is concerned, it may be rather unpleasant for hon. Members on both sides of the House who add to their Parliamentary stipends and enhance their political reputations by broadcasting to realise that a very large number of people never listen to broadcasts at all. I think that must have been very much the case with the notices that were given on the air of the last date of notification to the War Damage Commission. There is, therefore, real reason why a very large number of people failed to notify the War Damage Commission by the proper date. These people, many of whom are poor people who did not have the benefit of professional advice, are being penalised for an informality, because they did not fill in the right forms at the right time.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Croydon, East has raised this matter, but I am bound to inform the House that it has been raised by hon. Members on this side of the House over the past three years. Nearly three years ago we sent deputations to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and to the Chairman of the War Damage Commission and raised this matter of late notification. Unfortunately, we got no satisfaction from either the Treasury or the War Damage Commission, so we introduced a Private Member's Bill, the War Damage (Amendment) Bill, which was moved and seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton) and myself.
That Bill was debated in this House for four hours, and on both sides there was an almost unanimous opinion in favour of another review of these cases which had been turned down owing to late notification. I do not think that in that four hours' debate there was more than one dissentient voice. There was agreement on both sides of the House. The only people from whom we do not seem to be able to get agreement in this matter are the representatives of the

Treasury sitting on our own Front Bench. It appears to be a case of Winchester versus the rest of England.
I hope that on this occasion anyhow, when the opinion on both sides of the House has again been very clearly expressed in this Debate, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will be able to announce some concession along the lines of the Motion which has been put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton, and other of my hon. Friends:

[That this House, while recognising that the War Damage Act lays down the principle of a time limit for making war damage claims, and that the War Damage Commission have allowed very great latitude to claimants, requests the Government to continue the policy of admitting late claims for recognisable unrepaired war damage of a substantial character in cases where the claimant advised the local authority of the occurrence at the time, and the authority have a full record both of the damage and of repairs carried out by them.]

If he can do that, I do not think it will cost the Treasury very much. It would, I believe, remove a sense of injustice—and a sense of legitimate injustice—under which a number of people are suffering because they paid contributions towards the fund, suffered undoubted war damage, and have not been able to get any compensation from the War Damage Commission.

7.35 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander R. H. Thompson: The arguments in favour of a more forthcoming attitude on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman towards late notification claims have, I think, been admirably deployed by the earlier contributors to this Debate, but there are one or two points I should like to make which I believe to be pertinent. First of all, the type of persons who are really being hit by this failure to accept late notification claims is in most cases, quite humble people who have probably all their savings locked up in a little house which just about represents everything they have in the world. They may live there, they may let out lodgings but to them it is their stake in life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has pointed out that larger landlords and owners of property are, on the whole, well able to look after themselves in this matter. They employ agents and professional advisers to look after their interests. But as regards those who have not the benefit of this professional advice, I could quote many cases of unfortunate people who have actually had their homes seriously damaged while they themselves were evacuated to another part of the country.
The constituency which I have the honour to represent has been particularly badly hit in this respect, and nearly all the people on behalf of whom I have taken up this matter are very small people, several of whom were not even in the constituency at the time. To suggest that these people, many of whom are elderly and infirm, can go through this whole bureaucratic process—necessary, I agree, but very difficult for people like that—and make their claims in the prescribed manner within the prescribed time is, I think, asking too much of sorely tried human nature in time of war and immediately afterwards.
We know that the Financial Secretary has only so much cloth and a very large coat to contrive out of it, and 1Ihope that nobody will feel that a more forthcoming attitude towards these late notification claims will mean that the plug is to be pulled out of the bottom of the bath and millions of the taxpayers' money squandered. I do not think it will be.
Surely it is not impossible to get together with the local authorities, who keep the most complete and adequate records of all the incidents where they have administered first-aid and patched up bomb damaged houses, to sift the genuine cases of bomb damage which, for one reason or another, have not been notified in time, and to keep them apart from those other cases where there is some doubt whether the damage which it is sought to have repaired is, in effect, war damage or not. I should have thought that could be done with the material at our disposal without very much difficulty.
I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look again at this matter, because I think that a grave social injustice is actually being done at this time.

Of course, it may be that a more forthcoming attitude in the matter of late notification claims will mean that a certain number of people whose claims are, perhaps, not wholly sound may squeeze in through the door, as it were. But surely it is better that a few goats should get mixed in with the sheep rather than that the fold should be shut to sheep and goats alike.
I hope that whoever replies to this Debate will realise that this is not a party matter; that hon. Members on both sides of the House feel very strongly about it: that a large number of unfortunate people who, as has been pointed out, have paid their contributions, have lost nearly everything, and are not so situated that they could employ agents and surveyors to look after their affairs; are, in fact, suffering grave injustice, and that something ought to be done to improve their lot.

7.40 p.m.

Mrs. Middleton: Those of us on this side of the House who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) said, have been struggling to get recognition of genuine, late war damage claims for some three years, welcome the fact that so large a number of Members on the other side of the House have associated themselves with us and have come to our assistance in this struggle. Even though the Motion of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has "gone with the wind, we know not whither," we welcome the fact that his Motion was the reason why we were able to have this Debate and another look at this vexed question.
During the three-year period in which we on this side of the House have at intervals raised this matter, there have been some honourable exceptions on the other side of the House to the otherwise general neglect over there of the case that we have put. I should like to mention the support given to us, among others, by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall), who is not here today, and who, even at the height of an election campaign, when asked what Bill he would introduce if he had the good fortune to introduce a Private Member's Bill, had the courage to tell his constituents that he would reintroduce the War Damage (Amendment)


Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen once introduced into this House.
Then there has been the support of the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers), whose support, I confess, caused me the only doubt that I have ever experienced as to whether or not I was right in this matter. Thinking it over, I realise that even with one so consistently reactionary as the hon. Member for Orpington—and we all admire his consistency, even if we do not admire his views—there is always the one exception that seems to prove the rule.
Hitherto, the case has been argued almost exclusively from this side of the House, and the initiative in regard to it has always come from this side of the House. We are glad that our campaign has been so persuasive to the other side. I was touched almost beyond telling by the fact that humble words of mine might even have persuaded the Opposition Chief Whip to put his name down to the hon. Gentleman's Motion, and I hope that our speeches today will be equally persuasive with the Treasury Bench, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and also with the War Damage Commission.
I do not intend to cover all the ground which was traversed in the contributions which I made in the Debates on 11th June, 1948, 16th December, 1948, and 18th March, 1949, and in a wide variety of Questions that had been put to Ministers from time to time. These are all on record, and anyone who is interested to know about them can find them in the volumes of HANSARD. I must remind the House, however, of one or two facts in connection with the history of this matter.
Up to 1946–47—and the dates vary from town to town, which has been one of the major difficulties in this matter—the repair of war-damaged dwelling-house was almost completely in the hands of the local authorities. They were
responsible for the repairs. When the builders went from the pool to which the hon. Member for Croydon, East has already referred, to repair properties along a street, no question was asked as to whether or not the damage had been notified to the War Damage Commission. The building was entered, the damage was there to be repaired, and the damage was repaired.
No notification to the Commission was demanded of the owners of the bombed properties in order to get their properties repaired up to that point, although, of course, it would have been notified to the local authority and, almost without exception, would have been notified by the local authority to the War Damage Commission; but not by the individual owner. It is, I thing, important to remember that no evidence of notification was asked for from the owners of property up to that time. Under those circumstances, I think it must be obvious to everyone of us that the local authorities, in the first place, had a far more intimate knowledge, and still have a far more intimate knowledge of these questions of war damage to dwelling-houses, than any other body, not excluding the War Damage Commission or the Commission's assessors.
I welcome the fact, as indicated in the terms of the Motion which has since been withdrawn, that that point of view was expressed by the hon. Members of the Opposition who put their names on the Order Paper. I realise—and I know that my right hon. Friend will make this point—that there is difficulty at this late stage in differentiating between dilapidations and genuine war damage, but I think I have a right to point out that that is not the fault of those of us who for three years have been pressing this matter and the importance of it, and have been urging that some attempt should be made to draw upon the records and the knowledge of the local authorities in determining these claims.
In the City of Plymouth, which I have the honour to represent in this House, I am quite sure that the corporation and its very fine body of local, government officers are far better able to assess damage done to property in that city than any other person and, for myself, I would confidently leave this matter in their hands. I want to recapitulate some of the reasons why we who were in negotiation with the Treasury, not only during the last Parliament, but, as it happens, even when the Motion of the hon. Gentleman was put on the Order Paper, felt that we must press this matter and still feel that we must press it.
In the first place, there is the point to which I have already referred, that at the time when the damage occurred, and


for a number of years afterwards, the local authorities were in fact, if not in theory, the responsible war damage authorities in the localities, and in the eyes of the little man—and I agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is mainly for the little man that we are talking tonight—the local authority was the authority to whom he turned in his difficulty with regard to war damage, and it is quite reasonable that he has continued to look to the local authority in the days that have since passed.
Then I would put the further point that when a change-over took place and because the Minister of Health wanted, quite rightly, the local authorities to concentrate on their housing problems and their housing programmes instead of upon war damage, houseowners became responsible for negotiating with the Commission, and with building firms for the repair of their houses. The changeover extended over a very considerable period of time—I think almost over a period of 12 months from one part of the country to the other. The dates when the change-over took place varied from place to place, and I need not emphasise the point already adequately made that the notification of the change whatever may have been thought at the time, has proved to be inadequate to bring to the notice of all the people concerned the procedure which they must now follow.
The third point is that despite all that has been said in the Motion on the Order Paper which stands in my name and the name of some of my hon. Friends about the work of the War Damage Commission, we have to face the fact that since that period many claims have been unceremoniously turned down by just a duplicated form stating that the claim was out of date, and nothing has been done to explore the validity of that claim with the local authorities or to inform the claimant that if he can satisfy certain criteria his claim may be even yet admitted by the War Damage Commission.
On this side of the House we desire more than anything else, as I am sure the Chancellor does, to get finality on this matter. I do not want to be known personally, as I have sometimes been called in this House, as the hon. Mem-

ber for bomb damage. I do not want it to be thought that because I have necessarily had to be primarily preoccupied on this and other questions arising out of war damage, that it is the only contribution which I can make to the Debates of this House. I regret very much that I have had to spend so much of my time during the period I have been in this House on this and kindred questions.
My hon. Friends and I have tried to set out in the Motion on the Order Paper our very minimum demands, something which we feel affords a basis of compromise between the Treasury, the War Damage Commission and those who are interested in this matter in this House—something upon which we can all agree. Those Members of the House who have examined the Motion will perhaps have noticed what we are pressing.
The first point upon which we lay great emphasis is that the word "structural" should be eliminated from the formula of substantial structural damage, to which the War Damage Commission have up to now been working. The reason for that is that in our view it is quite intolerable that, as has happened in my constituency, in the same street one houseowner has had internal walls and ceilings of his property damaged but there has been nothing which has been classified as major structural damage and his claim has been disallowed, while on the other hand, some other person in the same street, in whose house an external crack has appeared, had had his claim admitted, because it has fulfilled the qualifications of structural damage. It is quite intolerable that cases of that sort—in some instances the damage has been done by the same bomb—should result in one case being admitted and the other case being turned down. So we attach very great importance to the elimination of that word "structural" from the formula, to which the War Damage Commission has hitherto worked.
The second point to which we attach great importance is that the opinion of the local authority should be obtained in every case as to the validity of every claim before its refusal on two grounds—(1), the local authority having been aware of the damage in the first place, and (2) the extent of the repairs, either first aid or otherwise, which the local authority has done to that property in the days when


they were responsible for repairs to dwelling-houses.
Indeed, I should like to go further than that. I should like to see the local authorities made the sifting machine of these claims. Every one of them should go to the local authority first of all, and from their large and very expert knowledge the local authority could advise the War Damage Commission whether, in their view, the claims put forward were valid claims or not. I think great help can be given in the solution of this problem if some kind of screening by the local authority in that way were introduced. I very much hope that my right hon. and learned Friend tonight will be able to accept these two principles, which are embodied in our Motion, and so put an end to our discussions in this House on this matter.
There is one other point I want to deal with before I sit down. Some hon. Members in conversation have said to me—indeed it has been occasionally stated in the Chamber itself—that there is no need to be continually raising this matter, that our agitation is not justified, and that it is only the very minimum of cases in which any injustice has occurred, if, indeed, any has occurred at all. I heard that point of view expressed by an hon. Member of the House only last evening. I want in conclusion to quote one case with which I have been dealing since October of last year. The papers are at the present time in the hands of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and so I hope I have the facts absolutely correct. If there is a little deviation I am sure he will excuse me.
In October of last year I wrote to the War Damage Commission regarding the case of a certain Mrs. Thomas in my constituency. The bare facts of that case were—this lady went to the War Damage Office of the local authority to notify the damage which had taken place to her home. She gave them all the particulars for which she was asked. She went home and a few evenings afterwards when she was listening to a broadcast—she was one of those who listened to broadcasts—she heard that when notifying war damage a person ought to fill up a form for the War Damage Commission.
During the course of the week she went back to the local authorities' office with a friend of hers, fortunately, and saw the clerk who was in charge of the office at

that time. She said she had come back to fill up a form for she had heard on the wireless that she had to fill up a form in order to substantiate her claim. The clerk told her that she had done everything she needed to do, and there was nothing further that she required to do with regard to it. She argued the case, and said, "Oh, but I heard on the wireless that I must fill up and send a form to the Commission," and the clerk said, "I tell you, Madam, you have done everything that there is any need to do, your claim will go forward and there is nothing more you need to do."
So Mrs. Thomas, who is one of those women who never jumps the queue and never wants to get an advantage over someone less well placed than herself, let the matter drift. She thought that the damage would be put right at some time, and then she found that nothing was being done about it. She made inquiries locally about the matter first of all, and she was told that the claim was out of time and could not be admitted. Then she came to see me about it, and she told me all this. I verified with the local authority that this conversation had taken place and, with her friend, who was prepared to swear before a magistrate that she had heard the conversation. I sent the information on to the War Damage Commission only to meet with the same refusal that Mrs. Thomas herself met with when she went to the War Damage Commission locally.
I was so angry about this case that I went to my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), who was then the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He argued the case with the War Damage Commission, and he was turned down. Then came the General Election. Mrs. Thomas then came back to me with her case. I was trying to get the Adjournment Motion to present this case, but I am afraid that I was unsuccessful. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, realising the injustice that was being done, took the matter up once again with the War Damage Commission, and I hope that he has been successful where hitherto we have failed.
If my right hon. and learned Friend were pleading in a court of law what a magnificent case he would put for Mrs. Thomas, a case not to be compared with the poor words I have uttered tonight. We know that there are similar cases of


injustice that has been done with every good intention in the world, and it is because of that we beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept the two points in the Motion to get a final settlement, and to see that justice is done to those who suffered as a result of enemy bombing.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: I am sure the House will be glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has raised this question tonight in a form which will not embarrass anyone later by having to select into which Division Lobby he will go. The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Middleton) will be particularly glad of that. There is really nothing between the two sides of the House on this question. and I hope that this Debate will be instrumental in persuading the Government to recognise that there is a very large number of persons who suffered damage to a greater or lesser degree and today justifiably entertain very strong feelings of injustice at the treatment they have hitherto received.
Those of us who sit for constituencies which suffered severe damage during the war have received a large number of letters drawing our attention to the sort of circumstances to which the hon. Lady referred in which claims have been rejected by the War Damage Commission. I do not propose tonight to read any of these letters. I have brought them with me, and I shall be pleased to show them to anyone who cares to read them. The constituency which I represent suffered very severe war damage. It is almost inconceivable, but of 43,000 houses in the borough of Ilford, 40,000 were damaged to a greater or lesser extent during the war. It is really not surprising, where so many cases of damage have taken place, that many claims have not been submitted within the prescribed time to the War Damage Commission.
My hon. Friend mentioned some of the reasons advanced for the failure to submit claims to the War Damage Commission within the prescribed period, or within the period when the War Damage Commission were prepared to accept claims outside the time stipulated by the War Damage Act. There were, in most of

the constituencies which suffered severe war damage, a very large number of persons who were evacuated for one reason or another. Some were evacuated with Government Departments, some with schools and, certainly in the borough of Ilford, there were a large number of people who had to leave London in connection with their businesses.
Then, again, there were those in the Forces. There were people whose houses were occupied by tenants during the war and the occurrence of war damage was not known to the owners until they returned. There is also another class of case, of which I have had several examples, where damage was done to property on several occasions, the appropriate notice being given of the first war damage but the owner assuming that that was sufficient when later damage took place. In consequence, no further notice was given, with the result that he realised too late that notice should have been given of the successive damage done to property.
In most of these cases, the local authorities possess records of a fairly reliable character identifying the particular properties that suffered damage during the war. The records do not in every case identify the extent and nature of the damage, but they do show the particular properties that suffered damage at some stage during the war. 1 do not doubt that when the Minister comes to reply, he will dwell on the fact that notice was given in the newspapers and on the B.B.C., as well as in other ways, by the War Damage Commission calling upon persons to make their claims. I hope the Government will not attach too much importance to the fact that a claim was not made within the prescribed time.
It is apparently impossible to ascertain the extent of these claims, or the number of late claims the War Damage Commission have rejected. I put down a Question the other day, and I was told that it was impossible even to make an approximation of the amount that might be involved. Most of these claims are small. I have looked through the large number of letters I have received, and the largest claim I have in my correspondence is for £200.
The hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley), as he reminded the House, introduced a Private Member's Bill in the


last Parliament in which he sought to transfer from the War Damage Commission to the Treasury the duty of determining whether a late claim should be admitted. If the Government were prepared to accept that solution, those of us who have been pressing these claims upon them would not be dissatisfied. I suggest to the hon. Member, however, that that is not really the right approach. I do not think we ought to attach too much importance to reasons why a particular claim was or was not made.
The important aspect is not the reason why a person failed to make a claim, but whether there is any independent and reliable evidence that his property suffered damage during the war. If it can be established from the records of the local authority or from some other source that a particular property suffered damage during the war, then surely, whether the owner made his claim within the prescribed time or failed to do so, his claim in whole or in part ought now to be met. I am sure that the feeling on both sides of the House is that this volume of claims ought to be accepted and settled now, either in part or in whole, quite irrespective of whether anybody made a claim at the right time or failed to do so.
I say to the Financial Secretary that a great deal of time has been spent on debating whether or not there was good reason for putting in a claim. The claims which exist concern mainly persons of comparatively moderate means, and sometimes of very modest means; they are the cause of a sense of injustice, not only among persons whose claims have not been met, but also among their friends and neighbours.
The Government would be much better advised to approach this problem from an entirely new angle and to ask themselves what the volume of these claims is likely to amount to and whether there is any independent evidence that the properties in question were in fact, damaged during the war. If they are satisfied about these two matters, then let us abandon this method of debating with one another whether claims ought to have been put in when a broadcast announcement was made or whether it was reasonable for people not to have received notice of the Press and radio announcements by the War Damage Commission.
If it can be established that there is a volume of war damage claims which can

with reasonable certainty be attributed to incidents during the war, then surely it is the wish on both sides of the House that the claims should be met now and that the sense of injustice which is felt by so many people should be ended.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I should like to reinforce the plea which has been made from both sides of the House. In many of these cases the line of demarcation is, I think, made perfectly clear. Where the claims have been made within the stipulated time, although to the wrong quarter, there ought not to be any difficulty about admitting them.
There is one particular case from my own constituency, in which, although it was not, happily, very much bombed, one isolated bomb caused considerable damage. The owner of the property in question notified the local authority in July, 1940, within the stipulated time of 30 days. The claimant thought that his notification would, in turn, be sent to the War Damage Commission but before that could be done the person to whom it had been sent died, although he had made a record of the claim. The result is that the notice did not reach the War Damage Commission in time. The Commission now say that the notification, being out of time, cannot be met.
I think that that is as clear a case as could be made by the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Middleton) of a claim which should he admitted. It was submitted in time and was admitted by the people who knew the facts to be due to war damage. Although it was not made in due form to the proper quarter within the proper time, yet in justice the whole of the requirements of the law have been met, although not formally. Cases of this sort should be met wholly and the damage paid for.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: I support the plea for the reconsideration of war damage claims which have been rejected on the ground that they were made out of time. I do not want to enter into a competition in suffering, but 1 speak as one of the representatives of West Ham, which regretfully, and in no spirit of boasting, can claim to be the worst blitzed township in the country.


I, as a supporter of the Government, am deeply conscious that in this matter we are making further demands upon the public funds, and when we on this side do that we feel inhibitions, which if I may say so, are not always manifested by the representatives of the Tory Party when they are in opposition. Far be it from me, however, to cast a pebble of discord into the charming pool of agreement which has appeared in the House tonight.
Those of us on this side who have been pressing for a long time for a more generous attitude in this matter of belated war damage claims by the Treasury want to make it quite clear that we do not desire to open the floodgates. But we do feel that concessions should be made in cases where not only has injustice been felt by the applicants, but where injustice has properly been felt by them and by those of us in the House who have intervened on their behalf.
I must confess that I was shocked to hear of the case referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris), because my own experience of putting up such cases to the War Damage Commission has been that they have shown considerable latitude in dealing with them and have met such exceptional cases in full generosity. I am very surprised that the result of the intervention by the hon. and learned Member was not as fruitful as it should have been.
In this Debate there is a danger of exaggerating this matter. My own experience, in the many cases I have put up from my constituency, has been that generally the War Damage Commission have dealt with the claims generously and, of course, always courteously. But there have been instances where I, too, have felt there have been hard decisions and where inevitably the constituent concerned has felt injustice has been done. But that is exceptional. The fact that it is exceptional surely makes it possible for the Treasury to meet us on that point.
I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson) that it is difficult to ascertain the exact number of cases where there has been a refusal owing to late notification, but there cannot have been many. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton.

Itchen (Mr. Morley) referred to 300 cases. Presumably, they were not all from his own division, but came to him from all parts of the country as he sponsored a Private Member's Bill in the last Parliament.
I feel that because instances where injustice has demonstrably been done are few that is a good reason for the Treasury to re-open the matter, particularly in the kind of case referred to by hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite where some authority, local or national, has been seized of the information regarding the damage at the time it took place, even though the War Damage Commission itself may not have been seized of the information. If that were so and if the victim concerned had information as to the damage to his property conveyed to the local authority, or some other authority, surely in this matter we can take a generous view and say that, although the letter of the law has not been strictly complied with, we should allow some latitude so that real justice can be done. I speak as the representative of a heavily blitzed area. It is really not enough that in war-time there should be noble words of exhortation to blitzed areas to "stick it."
Fine words butter no parsnips.
Nor do they repair war damaged houses. I implore the Treasury to look at this matter once again particularly in cases where the local authority was undoubtedly seized of all the relevant information, where that information can be checked and where, by taking this more generous view, justice can fully be done.

8.23 p.m.

Sir Austin Hudson: As a London Member, representing, like the hon. Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones), one of the areas which suffered very much during the war, I wish to occupy the time of the House for not more than five minutes to make a plea to the Government that where some slight amelioration can be made in these war damage cases it should be made.
Any London Member will be able to tell the House that the bulk of his correspondence still, after this distance from the end of the war, is occupied by war damage cases.I do not


want the whole matter opened again, but I do want cases where there is a good excuse for the person who has suffered war damage to be allowed to have it examined afresh by the Commission. I pay this tribute; I suppose that every week I write three or four letters to the War Damage Commission and always find them extremely helpful, courteous and ready at any time to take any amount of trouble to get to the bottom of a case, however trivial it may seem.
I will tell the House of the sort of case I want looked into. First, quite a number of people say they thought a claim was put in by the tenant, or someone else. During the war they were away from London and they had the idea that the claim had been put in. Another case which we have all had is where the person has notified the borough council and had the idea that that was the same as notifying the War Damage Commission. People are not always very clever in these things and I am certain we have all had that experience.
I do not know whether this matter could be dealt with, but another type of case I have quite frequently in letters and interviews is where a person has had extremely faulty work done, probably while somebody else was the tenant of the house, and the so-called war damage repairs have not been done at all. I must say that in those cases the Commission will nearly always send a representative to go into the whole matter.
Another case of which I have had quite a number of instances is where someone else signs the certificate to say that the work has been completed satisfactorily. I have had such cases where sometimes the previous tenant has done it and I know of a case going through now where the wretched person alleges that his original signature was forged. We get quite a number of cases where someone else has signed the certificate of satisfactory completion whereas as a matter of fact nothing satisfactory has been done.
I reiterate that I have no complaint whatever, in fact nothing but praise, for the War Damage Commission and the work they are doing, but if the Government could allow a little more latitude where there is a prima facie case in which, perhaps through stupidity, a person has not put in the claim in time—it would not cost

the Government a great amount to help alleviate the great amount of distress.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Daines: I join with the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson) in what he has said about the War Damage Commission. I have always found them extremely courteous and always prepared to give a re-examination if some case can be established. I do not know whether the Chancellor is to reply to the Debate. I was informed that he would do so. I can imagine that when he comes with his brief he will put up a devastating show, blind us all with logic and put up a perfectly satisfactory case in these terms.
I admit, and we might as well face it, that if any substantial concessions are made tonight on the points raised in the Motion on the Paper, they will be bound to cause considerable untidiness in administration and are bound to mean a vast new organisation being created which I can well imagine the War Damage Commission and my right hon. and learned Friend are not anxious to see. But what we are primarily concerned about is not whether there is an administrative mess or not, but whether there is an injustice that can be put right. I am glad that it is from that point of view that this Debate has been initiated by Members of the Opposition tonight.
I can well imagine that one of the points which my right hon. and learned Friend will make is that if the point is conceded that the local authority records should be accepted there are many areas in the country where such records are faulty, and that it will mean injustice as between one set of people and another. I would argue, and I think it is a perfectly reasonable argument, that if cases are established in which there are true records, the fact that there are cases in which there are no records available is no reason why the people concerned in those cases in which there are true records should be debarred.
I have found, as I am sure most Members have found, vast numbers of cases in which the first incident was reported, and in which constituents have assumed that the local authority looked after the rest and in which consequently no subsequent claim has been made. I submit that where there are clearly established local authority records the subsequent cases should be admitted.
My final point arises from one which was made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North. He dealt with the cases of people who have signed to say that the war damage repair is complete. We are already beginning to find a whole series of consequences arising from those cases. There are among my constituents, and I know that this is true of other constituencies, cases of people who have signed to say that the damage has been put right. So far as they know it has been put right, the repairs are there and visible. The paper and the woodwork have been replaced.
But bombs and blast are awkward things, and those people are now beginning to find after five or six years that serious structural damage is beginning to show. They are beginning to find that the drains are going and that there are all sorts of other effects, very often in the case of houses which are 30 or 40 years old, when there is no evidence of subsidence in the district and where every atom of evidence is to the effect that the damage is due to the blasting.
I appreciate that there must be some finality. I will be frank, and say what everybody else knows but which no one else has said tonight. There are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who have "got away" with money under this scheme to which they are not entitled. While that is so, and while I agree that it may make the Chancellor and the War Damage Commission want to be tough, it is to my constituents a source of further grievance and injustice. I admit all these difficulties. I know that from the standpoint of logic the Chancellor has a far stronger case than we have. But I beg the Government to reconsider this problem and give what easement they can from the standpoint of common simple justice.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Price: In intervening in this Debate I am greatly strengthened r)y the fact that this evening, as when the subject was last discussed in the autumn of last year, a feeling transcending all party difference has been manifested. It is a feeling that the position is extremely unsatisfactory and that widespread injustices are being inflicted. I represent a London constituency which suffered heavily, particularly during the flying bomb period. During the few

months in which I have been a Member of this House I have, like other hon. Members, received dozens of letters on this topic.
I have read and heard and know perfectly well all the arguments which have been put forward on behalf of the War Damage Commission and the Treasury. know all about the notices that have appeared in the Press, posters which have appeared on the hoardings and outside town halls and announcements which have been made on the radio. I am fairly well satisfied that these steps have been sufficient to apprise the majority of the population of what had to be done to cover themselves in this matter.
As has been said this evening, more than once, business men, civil servants, etc., men who are accustomed to keeping themselves abreast of current affairs, have had every opportunity to cover themselves, and have no right to expect sympathy if they have failed to do so. But there are thousands of other people who have been referred to this evening, who hate the sight of a buff form; who go to bed at 8 o'clock; who never listen to the radio; who cannot read, who are deaf and so on—literally thousands of them. And the proof of the pudding— [HON. MEMBERS: "All Tories?"] Yes, in my constituency, they are all Tories now; they voted Socialist in 1945. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the complaints we are receiving of injustice are sufficient evidence that this particular pudding is not only proving rather indigestible, but in a good many cases is causing heartburn.
It has been said that we ought not to quote too many cases, but I make no apology for quoting two and I do so for this reason. It has been alleged, and I support the view, that the present administration of the War Damage Acts, is not all it might be. Having made that charge, I must produce evidence to support it, and I wish to quote these two cases because they show two separate and distinct ways in which, to my mind, the administration is unsatisfactory.
The first case concerns a lady who lives in my constituency, and owns a house at Gravesend. It is, or it was, let to a tenant. During the war the lady, who was in Lewisham, wrote to her tenant in Gravesend, not once, but many times, asking whether the house was all right.


Each time she received a letter back saying that the house was perfectly all right, and that there was nothing to worry about. Imagine her astonishment when, after the war and quite by chance, she discovered from a man who had been living in that house as a boarder that the house had, in fact, been damaged.
The War Damage Commission refused to accept this late notification, and allow me to tell the House why. It was because they did not consider it reasonable for the lady to rely on the statement of the occupier. I wonder if the House realises what the War Damage Commission have done? They have charged the owner with being an inefficient landlady; they sat in judgment upon her. The War Damage Commission prosecuted her; the War Damage Commission was the jury and found her guilty; the War Damage Commission was the judge and sentenced her to pay for her own war damage. The War Damage Commission was an interested party and there was no appeal. I cannot imagine the Chancellor of the Exchequer approving such a situation. It would be abhorrent to his legal mind. It is ludicrous that the War Damage Commission should be in a position to take such action, or be in a position in which they have to take such a step having had such a responsibility thrust upon them.
The second case I wish to quote is one about which I feel very strongly indeed. It is a case in which late notification was accepted. It is the treatment after the late notification to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. It is a case familiar to the hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley), although it happened in my constituency. Two blind people, a man and his wife, always blind since their birth, lived in a house in my constituency. The property was damaged several times. There is no dispute about the first damage, that was notified. The subsequent incidents, and I believe there were six, were not notified, according to the War Damage Commission.
I will ask the House to note that these two people are blind. They could not possibly notify the damage themselves, but had to rely on other people to do it for them. They cannot swear on oath that those incidents were in fact notified. They can only swear that they asked someone or other to notify them; but it is not without relevance that in each

case the Part II claim was notified and has been met. Despite that fact, the War Damage Commission were unsympathetic. They did eventually agree to accept a late notification, and against a claim for over £1,400 they agreed to accept responsibility for £415 leaving this blind couple to shoulder the burden of £1,000. They have not a thousand shillings.
As it was a late notification case, the procedure of the War Damage Commission was to send their inspector and to accept responsibility only for what he advised was indisputably war damage. He cut out £1,000 worth of work. Included in that work was the repair of the front bay, downstairs and upstairs, which according to the technical adviser was not due to war damage. But the house immediately opposite had been completely destroyed and the occupants killed.
There is no appeal and the Commission refuse to allow their technical adviser to meet the claimant's adviser on the site to discuss the claim, because that is not their procedure in cases of late notification. How can anybody maintain that that is justice? How can anybody wonder that I feel bitter about it and want to see such a situation remedied? I know the difficulties.
I agree with those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who say that the Commission have a difficult duty to perform. I have always had the greatest courtesy from them and from Sir Robert Fraser; I know that there have been many occasions when claimants have got away with dilapidations as war damage; I know how difficult it is at times to distinguish between the two; and I appreciate the financial problems which face the Commission. I believe that they have spent something in the nature of £900 million against an estimate of £400 million; but I also believe that it would require a comparatively minute sum of money to put these injustices right. I call upon the Government here and now to recognise the spirit of the discussion which has taken place in this House and to do something about it.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman: It is impossible adequately to convey to my right hon.


and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the immense amount of feeling there is upon this matter. A considerable number of Members have spoken, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will have noted that there has not been one single voice expressing dissent. I, too, represent a very large London constituency which suffered a great amount of war damage. In the course of my Parliamentary duties I have received many letters about claims made by people who have suffered war damage and I have conveyed those letters to the Commission. Most of them were from people who were very poor and who could ill afford to expend the money necessary to repair war damage.
Many of the letters dealt with claims of people who had certainly notified the local authorities and who were under the impression that, having done that, they had done everything necessary. Some were about houses where damage was suffered and the first notification of the damage was given, but damage was suffered again and no further notification was given. I have had instances of soldiers returning from service who, after demobilisation, were unable to put in claims because they were too late. The damage had occurred whilst they were abroad. There were many instances of that nature.
I agree that the War Damage Commission have acted with courtesy, have considered these matters and have been anxious to help. Though one has received favourable replies in a very small number of cases, in the vast majority the usual reply has been, "We have gone into the matter; we are extremely sorry, but there is a late notification and nothing can be done." I earnestly plead with the Chancellor to assist. I should like to point out that the basis of dealing with these claims ought to be this very simple one: either there is a genuine claim or there is not.
If these people have suffered war damage and their claim is a genuine one. I would suggest to the Chancellor that their claims ought to be met, unless it can be shown that the claimants have been guilty of some sort of misconduct which would disentitle them to receive the amount which would otherwise be due to them. When we look round all the various constituencies which suffered

war damage and see the number of claims put forward in that way, when we remember the period of war-time and the difficulties which there were in the way of people appreciating the regulations and giving the necessary notification, when we realise the perplexities of family life then, surely we would agree all these factors ought to be taken into consideration. This Government, which I strongly support in the work it has done, surely prides itself in the fact that it will not see injustice done, and it is in the confident hope that, recognising that injustice is being done in these cases, the Government will give way and make some concession, that I make this appeal tonight.

8.46 p.m.

Brigadier Medlicott: I am glad to have the opportunity of intervening very briefly, following the example set by other hon. Members, on a matter which perhaps causes more anxiety to Members of Parliament than any other subject. Constituents write to us in cases where war damage has been suffered, where notice has been given to the local authority and where the premiums have been paid, and yet, when the time comes for the claim to go forward, these people are told that they are too late, because of some announcement in a newspaper which they have never read or on the radio which they never heard.
I would stress the fact that we are largely pressing and relying upon the cases where notice has been given to the local authorities, and I would go so far as to suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, if we were discussing this matter along the lines of the ordinary civil law, there would be a very strong case to be made out that the Treasury had, in fact, held out the local authorities as their agents, and that notice given to a local authority ought to be binding upon the Treasury.
The principal point I want to urge is the extreme unsuitability of the method adopted to notify members of the public as to how their claims ought to be made. The Chancellor, with his long and distinguished record at the Bar, will know how extremely careful the courts are that no man's position shall be altered except as a result of process served upon him personally. The situation must be brought to his personal notice, and the courts are


strict in insisting upon proof of service in every individual case, so that no man can be disadvantaged except by proof that he has had an opportunity of protecting his own rights. These "hit or miss" methods of a broadcast announcement or an announcement in a newspaper are a departure from the previous practice which I deplore, and they have brought about a wide sense of injustice.
The second point is that we are not dealing with the general body of taxpayers, but with people who have paid premiums. In the old days, whet, certain insurance companies allowed policies to lapse because of the late payment of premiums, they were accused of something very near to sharp practice, and that is something which we deplore in any aspect of our public life. Tonight, the speeches made have all had a certain friendliness towards the Chancellor and a certain moderation, but I suggest here that the good faith of our State is in issue. These people have paid the premiums, and are entitled to the benefits which should accrue to them from the payment of those premiums. We may be short of money, but we ought not to fall short of the highest standard of ethics in this matter.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Snow: Unlike other hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate, I feel that the Chancellor is capable of regarding this matter other than from the purely legal point of view, and it is on the more human side of this problem that I want to make an appeal tonight.
In dealing with these late claims, one must remember that many of the people who should have submitted claims but did not do so, are very ordinary people who, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, view the filling up of the documentation necessary for these claims in much the same way as, possibly, you and I regard the filling up of Income Tax returns. They are complicated forms, and, in many cases, people left them to others to fill up for them. I remember very well, in Portsmouth, a poor old lady coming to see me and stating, as her excuse for not submitting a claim form, that the damage took place while she was in a shelter, that she was in a very distressed condition just after the bomb incident, and that a priest had come round and told her that he was going to see to it, and that the council would be informed.
Obviously, that will not wash in law. It does not sound very convincing, but as she told it to me I was convinced that she had thought that the priest, who, later, I tried to trace, but could not, had seen to the matter for her. The Treasury, quite rightly, is preoccupied with the difficulty of dealing with fraudulent claims, but, on the other hand, many ordinary people confuse local government with Parliamentary Government. When they hear that the council is looking after the problem, they think that is all that is necessary.
But I must warn the House that some of the assumptions made this evening are going to lead us into very deep waters. Two or three hon. Members have said that if this concession is allowed by the Government, it will not involve very much money. I must dissent from that view. On the contrary, I believe there will be a large number of claims. While some may be frivolous and others downright fraudulent, a large number will be these marginal cases, which, by and large, the War Damage Commission will probably
allow. It is only right that the House should realise that a very large sum of money may be involved.
There is another point on which the House should be warned. One hon. Member said that local authorities had reasonable records of the incidents when the damage took place. We looked into this matter very carefully in the last Parliament, and I am bound to say that it is not really true. Many local authorities have very good records; some have indifferent records, and many have no records at all. It would be a very difficult problem indeed to lay down that claims should be considered or allowed on the basis of local authority records. I think that probably the best thing would be—and I am right behind the promoters of this Motion—to ask local authorities for their advice as to how claims could be screened, even where local authorities have no records to go by.
I wish to conclude my remarks by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Middleton), whose initiative and drive were an inspiration to many of us in the last Parliament. I feel that we ought to pay that tribute to her because without that inspiration many of us would have given up hope during the last Parliament.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Black: I wish to say a few words about my experience of the serious problem which the House is debating tonight. To give some idea of the magnitude of this problem in some areas, I would mention that in the town of Wimbledon, forming part of the constituency which I have the honour to represent, there are some 15,000 separate houses and flats, of which no fewer than about 14,700 were damaged by enemy action during the war, some of them on several occasions. The residue of these cases which are outstanding, and which the War Damage Commission will not meet on the ground of failure of notification or of late notification, are causing a very real sense of grievance in the communities which were particularly affected by war damage.
During the comparatively short time I have been a Member of this House, I have been asked to help a very large number of constituents faced with this particular problem. It would be fair to say that I have had less success in obtaining concessions from the War Damage Commission than I have had in dealing with any other kind of problem on behalf of constituents. The feeling of injustice on the part of the people concerned is something that must be experienced at first hand to be fully realised. The point cannot be too strongly emphasised that, in substance, the war damage scheme is an insurance scheme. Not only is it an insurance scheme, but it is a compulsory insurance scheme to which every property owner was compelled to contribute his share.
Where reasonable evidence of war damage can be established, I think the House would hold the view that every property owner, who qualifies, ought to be able to draw a proper amount out of the pool; and he should not be deprived by merely technical reasons or considerations. In fact, what has been happening in regard to the administration of the Act in these cases has worked out, in the majority of cases, in the nature of one law for the rich and another law for the poor. The big property owner has been able to command the services of surveyors and legal advisers, who have taken the necessary steps to see that all forms were duly completed and lodged with the War Damage Commission by

the required date and the claims, therefore, properly kept open.
On the other hand, the small owner, the man who, perhaps, has laboured for the best part of a lifetime to buy the home in which he lives, has not had the benefit of the help of lawyers and surveyors and, owing to ignorance of the law or misundertanding as to what steps it was necessary for him to take, has been deprived of the benefits of the scheme, for technical and legalistic reasons. That is a very deplorable condition of affairs which I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do something to alleviate when he comes to reply to the Debate.
I suggest that the principle to be followed ought not to be the principle of judging whether a claim should be recognised or not recognised simply according to whether the claim had or had not been made at the proper office of the proper authority by the proper date. But it would be quite reasonable for the War Damage Commission to say, in cases of doubt or difficulty, "We are not able, at this late stage, to judge whether this particular disrepair or damage was due to war circumstances or not because, by failure to notify the damage, we were deprived of the opportunity of inspecting at the time when we could have judged." In a case of that kind it would be reasonable for the War Damage Commission to reject the claim.
Where it is clear from the evidence available that the damage is, in fact, war damage and that the only defect in the claim is the failure to lodge the claim at the right office at the right time, then I suggest that justice requires that in such cases the claims should be recognised and equity should be done.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Moeran: I wish to make one short point in this Debate, because I believe the hardship cases of which we have heard from both sides of the House arise largely from the fact that the War Damage Commission has now no discretion whatever allowed to it. Until some time ago they could exercise discretion in admitting a claim which had not been notified within the time. Today, according to my information in cases which I have handled, they are in no circumstances allowed to


admit a claim, however deserving and however just.
I know that hard cases make bad law, but the instances which we have heard from both sides of the House show that sometimes bad law makes hard cases. I plead for a very simple remedy, namely, that discretion should be restored to the War Damage Commission. I will cite one case from my own personal experience of a young couple who bought a house in August, 1947. They made inquiries of the War Damage Commission. Their solicitors wrote and asked for a notification form. First-aid repairs had been carried out by the local authority, and the couple were sent back a claim form—the second form which has to be filled up—from which they assumed that the first-aid repairs had been notified and that the War Damage Commission had notification of the claim. There was then delay in preparing the claims form—it is not only public bodies and Government offices which delay. When the claim form was sent in, they were informed that the claim had not been notified in time, and that they were shut out completely.
The kind of remedy in these cases of hardship does not demand legislation. It only means that the War Damage Commission should be allowed discretion so that in these cases of genuine hardship the Commission can act. We cannot expect every official to understand all the implications of every letter that is sent in, but in the case which I have cited, as in other cases, there is no doubt at all that failure to make a claim in time was at least contributed to by the War Damage Commission itself and by the action it took. It is that kind of case, of which I am informed there are many, that is crying out for treatment and for a wider discretion than the Commission now exercises.
I would add my plea to the Chancellor to open the door to these genuine cases which demand treatment for reasons of not less than simple justice. As we have heard from all quarters of the House, a sense of injustice is genuinely suffered, and I ask that injustice should be remedied for at least some of our citizens.

9.4 p.m.

Captain Ryder: Those of us who have listened to this Debate will be aware that there is a widespread grievance in this matter.
I am very gad therefore that this request is so fully supported on both sides of the House. At the same time, we should appreciate that there are two sides to this problem and that very large sums of money may be involved. We should, therefore, extend some measure of sympathy towards the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, I have no doubt, would like as much as anyone to see these claims met, but who has the responsible task of guarding the public purse.
On the other hand, it should be appreciated that when the War Damage Act was originally passed through this House it was then clearly intended that those unfortunate people who had received damage to their houses should be fully and fairly compensated and not deprived of this compensation by any small legal formality. May I read an extract from the speech of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer Sir Kingsley Wood on the Third Reading of the War Damage Bill? He said:
We have also worked out a scheme for indexing the claims and correlating them with the reports which are furnished by local authorities of damaged buildings in their respective areas.
That is a very significant passage. Later, he said:
It is our ideal…to interpret this complicated Measure in the simplest possible way. As regards those who have already submitted claims on form V.O.W. I to the Inland Revenue District Valuer, arrangements are being made for those forms to be handed over to the War Damage Commission…Anyone who has sent in such a form will not be asked to renew his claim, though he may, no doubt, receive from the Commission a request for further information or be given instructions as to his future procedure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1941; Vol. 369, c. 547.]
I feel that there was a clear indication that there would be a link-up between the local authorities and the War Damage Commission.
The House should bear in mind the ordinary human frailities of humble people, who are not expert in filling up forms, and the state of mind they might have been in after having received a near miss. It may be that they were aged folk and were suffering from shock from subsequent disasters of war and, at the time, they may have had to fill in quite a number of other forms—demanding new ration cards and clothing coupon books and identity cards. The question


we must ask ourselves is this: Is it reasonable to expect these people, some years later, to know whether they filled in form V.O.W. 1 and, if they did, whether they handed it to the Inland Revenue Valuer of the local district or to somebody else at the local council offices?
That is the substance of my complaint, but I feel that first and foremost, if we are to give an opinion it is most important that we should have some idea of the size of the problem, the number of people whose claims have been rejected and the sum of money likely to be involved. It was with this in mind that I put down a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Tuesday and also intervened with a supplementary question earlier today. He took that occasion to accuse me of abusing the courtesies of the House. I have no wish to make a personal matter of this, but I thought it was quite a reasonable question and, indeed, was essential if hon. Members are to give full consideration to the problem.
I feel that the Chancellor's replies were somewhat curt, in the circumstances, and that we were entitled to a better reply, in view of the fact that this is a matter of widespread grievance. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not feel that I bear him any malice and that he will be able to give us a more considered reply in this Debate. My request is that we should ask the Government to have the whole subject fully and carefully examined, seeking also the comments of the War Damage Commission, so that the House may be better informed of the nature of the problem which we face.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am very pleased indeed to be able to take part in this Debate even though the time is short. I will follow your request, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and sit down in time to allow the right hon. Gentleman to put the Opposition point of view. I particularly wanted to take part in the Debate because of the fact that I represent an area which probably had more war damage than any other area. I heard my colleague the hon. Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones) speaking and I tried to give him the figures so that they could be used in the Debate.
In West Ham the number of buildings that were destroyed or so badly damaged that they needed to be demolished was 14,000, or 27 per cent. of the total number of buildings in that one borough. In addition, another 11,000 were damaged beyond human habitation, and a further 29,000 were damaged in some way or another and needed repairs. I want to ask the Chancellor, can he really imagine what the feelings of those people were in that particular borough during that period when the bombers were coming over from 6 o'clock at night to 6 o'clock in the morning, night after night after night? Can he wonder that many of them never had time to think about notifying the War Damage Commission of the damage to their property?
Many of them, obviously, never took the trouble. Many of them were of the opinion that, in view of the fact that the local borough council came round almost immediately and commenced what was then termed first-aid repairs, in fact the notification had been made for them by the local borough council. Many of them were not even in the area. They were evacuated, or were away on war work, and it was only subsequently that they found that, in fact, their particular houses had been damaged, and that the notification that had been given to the council in fact was not in accordance with the Act.
Mention has been made of the sympathetic way in which the War Damage Commission has dealt with some of the late notifications. I can here pay tribute myself to Sir Robert Fraser. I think that if he had the opportunity he would admit far more claims than he has done in the past, and I think it is wrong that the position should be as it is now, in which surveyors, builders, architects, and even the War Damage Commission's surveyors themselves are saying, "Yes, we know it is war damage. We agree that the whole lot is war damage. We think that it should be met by the War Damage Commission, but because the dear old lady—or the dear old gentleman—omitted to notify the War Damage Commission within the requisite period he—or she—is not entitled to have the money paid to her."

Mr. Weitzman: Shame.

Mr. Lewis: My last word is this. It is true to say that, in the main, the heaviest blitzed areas have been the working class, highly industrialised and over populated areas. It is true also to say that, in the main, they are the poor and ordinary working class people who live in those areas, and it is those, in the main, that can ill afford to meet these hundreds of pounds, and, in many instances, thousands of pounds, that have now to be found for repairing and rebuilding their property. I would ask the Chancellor to give some concession, even if it is only to have the matter again looked into, so that these people who, through lack of knowledge, did not notify the Commission at the time, may be entitled to get from the Commission—and, in fact, shall get from the Commission—the money that is rightfully theirs.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Like others who have taken part in this Debate, I recognise the difficulty in which the Chancellor is placed in being asked to add any further, and to some extent undefined, burdens on the national finances. I recognise also, as others have done, the courtesy, helpfulness and efficiency of the War Damage Commission. But because these cases are exceptional it would seem, as so many hon. Members have said, that some concession might reasonably be given.
The classes of difficulty are really two: first, those where people have had good reason to suppose that somebody else has made a valid notification on their behalf and it has turned out not to be the case; and secondly, where the information is in the possession of the local authority and the owner has thought that that was sufficient. It so happens that, though I do not sit for one of the heavily blitzed areas, within the last week, and quite independently of this evening's proceedings, I have received letters from my constituents illustrating both those two problems.
The first is concerned with the trustees of a charitable concern whose property was managed by a firm of estate agents in my constituency. In that particular case, by a clerical error in the department of the estate agents' notification for one of the properties was not made. The effect is that a precisely comparable property
next door, in respect of which the due notification was made, is in receipt of payment, but not this one which was by an oversight omitted. At that time, both partners in the estate agency were serving overseas, one actually being a prisoner of war in a Japanese camp.
There is a case in which owners obviously thought the estate agents would make all necessary notification, and but for the circumstances of war it would clearly have been made. Surely a presumption can be drawn from the fact that payment is admitted for the next door property that exactly similar circumstances apply to this property.
The second case is that of a requisitioned property. A constituent of mine owns property in London which was war damaged when under requisition. What clearer case could the ordinary citizen have for thinking that the business of notification was taken care of than that at the time the property was actually requisitioned under the Defence Regulations for the use of His Majesty? Surely in those cases, if there is any reasonable evidence or presumption that the damage was caused by enemy action the question of notification should be waived and the matter looked at on its merits. I promised to be very short, and those are the only points I have to make. I add my voice to those asking that the Chancellor give sympathetic attention to this question.

9.18 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: It would not do for this Debate to close without an appeal being made for the two towns of East Anglia which are so near the Dutch coast and which came in for such a lot of heavy bombing, and very frequent bombing, especially in the early years of the war. Those are my own constituency of Great Yarmouth, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans).
In 1940, the two main industries of the town I represent just vanished overnight—
the seaside resort industry and the fishing industry. The people were told to get out. Loudspeakers went round the town and urged them to get out at once, to leave things more or less as they stood, and so they did. Later the troops and the Navy came in. I have had the same


experience as the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) among a number of my constituents who left their houses and went somewhere else in the country—
especially elderly people—and whose premises were requisitioned by the Army, Navy or Air Force.
If one assumes that since the war ended all these people came back to live their normal lives and that these two great industries were revived at once, then the time limit set by the War Damage Commission would be all right; they would have had ample time in which to go to their lawyers, their uncles, or to whatever friend they go to for the purpose and have their papers signed. But many of these people are still coming back to Yarmouth to take up their residence. The electoral register is getting bigger every week. It is quite likely that if we have an election, say, in four years from now, another alteration will have to be made in my constituency, because there will be enough people in the borough by then to make an electoral change necessary.
That is the position which has gone on since 1940 when people were hounded out of the town, and no allowance has been made for that state of affairs, especially for the poorer people. It is the poorer people who are suffering. Those who are better off have their solicitors and accountants, and in my recollection I do not think I have had any difficulty in the constituency with regard to people who could employ a solicitor or accountant to present their war damage claims within the prescribed period. It is the other people who come to see me week after week—people who have just enough money to pay their rent and rates and cannot embark on the expenditure necessary to put right houses some of which have perhaps been left to them and in which they had hoped to spend their days.
One person came to me last Saturday, after receiving a disappointing reply from the War Damage Commission in respect of a claim which I had sent through for her. She was an old lady and was looking after her mother aged 98. The person for whom she had put in a claim was her aunt aged 99. This old lady's means were very slender and she could not possibly embark on the repair of her

house at present day prices. I could give any number of similar cases.
I saw one of my constituents tonight. His father had one of the biggest boarding houses in my constituency, which was hit by the first bomb dropped in the town. The damage was assessed at £15,000. For 10 years, until this year, it had been open to the weather and deteriorating rapidly. This year the War Damage Commission have allowed him to spend £4,700 on one wing of the property which will be completed in October. But it will be completely useless as a boarding house until the other wing is put right because the kitchen is in the other wing. Let us look at this matter from a common sense point of view.
The Minister of Pensions last year told us that we could tell our constituents that if anyone felt that he had an injustice after fighting for his country and thought that his claim for a pension should be reviewed, he could send it through. He said that it did not matter whether it was in connection with the last war or the war before. That caused a great deal of gladness among our constituents. Cannot we do the same thing with regard to these claims? Why cannot we say to the old lady I have mentioned, whose house was knocked about by enemy action and who has done as much for the country as the fellow who had a wound at Dunkirk, that her claim will be reviewed? I think that we should do everything that we can to help these people and to try to soften some stony hearts.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: All the Members of the House are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) for succeeding in raising this topic this evening. This Debate has been entirely non-controversial so far, and I see no reason why it should not remain so until it comes to an end. I notice that most of the Members who have spoken have been those whose constituencies suffered most from war damage. That is perhaps not to be wondered at, and it was a little bit innocent for one Member on the other side of the House to refer to the fact that every speaker in this Debate was pressing very strongly on the Chancellor the views which had been, put forward in the


Motion which was on the Order Paper a few days ago.
I represent now a constituency, which, happily, did not suffer great war damage, but in the last Parliament I represented a constituency which did, and I think it is the duty of this House, and, of course, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—which, I know, he will carry out—to hold the scales evenly between the claimants, who have not been satisfied, and the taxpayers, who have to find the money with which to satisfy them. As has been pointed out, although this war damage scheme was an insurance scheme, it must not be forgotten that the contributions made by those who paid them were not anything like sufficient to meet the very heavy claims which the community as a whole has to meet. That is a point which we must always bear in mind.
Everyone in the House has paid tribute to the work of the War Damage Commission, and all those who have had experience of it would like to join in that tribute. They have been doing a very difficult job, on the whole extremely well. I know what difficulties they are in over this question of late claims, and I know very well what difficulties the same gentlemen are going to be in when late claims for development value under the Town and Country Planning Act begin to come in in one or two years' time. We will meet the same problem then.
It is absolutely true that there are numbers of people who never hear the wireless and never read a newspaper, and who do not know when to take some particular action which concerns their own interest. It is a great mistake to think that all people in this country read the newspapers although a large number of newspapers are sold, and it is also a great mistake to think that everybody listens to the wireless. It is almost impossible for a department like the War Damage Commission to get over to the public the message they want to get across, except by personal communication to people. That is really the only way of achieving it completely. In consequence of that there is no doubt that there has been a great deal of hardship owing to the fact that many claims should have been made which have not, in fact, been made.
Hon. Members on all sides of the House have given many illustrations to prove hardship has been suffered. The principal points covered have been these: there were owners of property who were absent on Service overseas; there were owners of property who were absent from their property because it was tenanted and who did not hear about the damage; there were those whose property suffered damage on a number of previous occasions, who thought that when they had once reported the first instance, that that covered their claim, as it were, for the whole of the war; there were some who were very old and infirm, and some even, who, during the war, were bowed down with sorrow, and who had other things to think about.
Then there are the cases where the damage did not really become apparent until later. Those cases are bound to cause great difficulty, because it is always hard to distinguish between damage which has been the direct result of the war and damage which has accrued subsequently from neglect of property or something of that kind. There have been occasions when temporary repairs have covered up war damage and its true extent has only been apparent when something has been opened up subsequently. The temporary repairs were, perhaps, executed by the local authority in the absence of the owner and the more extensive damage never came to his notice at the time.
There is one other point which is of great importance. No doubt a good many local authority bomb repair organisations gave the impression that once they had been called in no further step was necessary on the part of the owner of the property. Although they ought not to have given that impression and had no authority to do so, none the less that is the impression which was gained.
So it comes about that a large number of hardships are being suffered. I think that hon. Members have been right when they have said that, on the whole, these hardships are suffered by the owners of small property. The larger property owners, who have had the advantage of good organisations to manage their property and have been able to employ skilled technical advisers, have not suffered to the same degree as the owners of small property. It is for those small owners that we plead especially tonight, and I beg the Chancellor to give every


possible consideration he can to these claims.
We are very loth indeed to add further substantial burdens to the Exchequer and we will naturally listen with great care to what the Chancellor may say. On the other hand, we wish to avoid great injustice being done, not only to small people, but to all property owners if they are suffering hardship.
I do not know whether it is too much to ask that this matter should be looked at afresh by the Chancellor. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East, who opened the discussion, said that he did not seek any alteration in legislation—he was wise not to do so considering that we are on the Adjournment; and it is well within the powers of the Chancellor to make a good many administrative easements which will help the War Damage Commission to meet some of these most difficult cases. That is the case which I wish to put to the Chancellor on behalf of my hon. Friends on this side, and I hope very sincerely that he will do his best to meet it.

9.33 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): I can assure hon. Members that it is a very much easier task to press for more money to be paid to one's constituents than to stand up for the nation as a whole in resisting expenditure of this kind. I also remind the House that too, come from a city which was very heavily blitzed during the war, so that I am perfectly conscious of the problems that arise.
I should like to remind the House, first, of the origin of the Commission and of its powers. The Commission was set up on purpose to separate the payment out of this very large sum of money that was contemplated from the immediate impact of political influence. Obviously, this is a case in which it is most dangerous that one should allow direct political influence to play, where so many people in so many constituencies are concerned, and it was particularly provided in the Act that the Commission should have power in their discretion to extend any limit of time specified so far as the notification of damage was concerned.
This I think was a very wise precaution which Parliament took. It did not leave it to Ministers to vary in particular cases the time of notification; it left that to a non-political body, the Commission, which could examine it impartially without any danger of political pressure. It is that fundamental structure with which we are dealing. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Moeran) asked that we should give back this discretion to the Commission. I would point out that it has never been taken away. They have it today and are indeed today exercising it and have been from the commencement of the operation of the scheme.
The question is, and this must really be the question we are considering, whether they have exercised that discretion wisely, or in such a way that we should take it away from them because they have not exercised it wisely. I think everyone admits—I would certainly like to pay my tribute—that the War Damage Commission have done an immensely difficult work with the greatest efficiency and, on the whole, with the greatest humanity. As the House knows, the receipts from war damage amounted to £200 million. We have so far paid out £900 million and this year we shall pay out another £75 million, making nearly £1,000 million, something like £90 for every family in the country, and it has been provided by every family in the country in order to hand it over to people whose houses or properties were damaged.
This is an immense insurance scheme and one can hardly imagine, with the most perfect organisation in the world, such an immense insurance scheme being carried through with no complaints. I am perfectly certain that there are some cases where people have not received that which they were entitled to and I am equally certain there are many cases where people have received that to which they were not entitled. What we have to do is to try to guard against that kind of demand being made upon the War Damage Commission and why in this case, as in every case of insurance, a reasonable period of notification must be insisted upon is because the paying body must have an opportunity of testing the circumstances while yet they are fresh.
I am sure everyone remembers, for instance, in the old days of workmen's compensation the need to give immediate notice if one were to get it. If one did not give immediate notice one went without. With motor car accidents and all these things one must give notice which will enable the insurers to test the facts while the facts can be ascertained. That is what the Act lays down and the initial period was 30 days.
It became pretty clear that 30 days in war circumstances obviously was not enough and the result was that that was completely abandoned and up to the end of 1942 there was no limit at all. At the end of 1946 the only limit was that if one was more than three months late with a notification one was asked to make a statutory declaration that it was true and that led to the withdrawal of a large number of notifications, but every person who was prepared to make a statutory declaration had his notification admitted, however late it was, even though it was years late. That was the position up to September, 1946, 18 months after the last bomb had dropped and the last bit of damage had been done. The House will realise that an enormous latitude was already being given at that period of time.
It was at that period that the Commission took the view, and I think rightly, that they must really start to apply rather more strict supervision as regards late notifications, not that they were going to exclude them altogether, but that they must be rather more rigid as regards the circumstances. In the spring of 1947 the Commission reviewed the position and then decided that, in view of this growing lapse of time since the last bomb fell, the repeated publicity that had been given and the very great difficulties that were beginning to arise in distinguishing between war and other damage, it was necessary for them to impose more severe restrictions on new notifications.
It has been suggested that the difficulties with local authorities, the changeover from which occurred about this period of time in some areas, was that the local authorities took to themselves the notification and did not pass it on. I do not think that can really be true because in the vast majority of cases the forms for notification were issued through the local authorities. Of the 3,400,000 notification

forms that were received, 3,200,000 referred to houses and house property, and the vast majority of them had their origin in forms issued by the local authority. If one could find an area where there were no such forms coming in, one might say that the local authority had neglected their duty, that they never gave out any forms, that they never told people that they should notify the War Damage Commission, and that one must assume that everyone was misled. That does not happen. It is isolated cases that are complained of in a large number of areas.
It is, therefore, quite impossible to say that one has to go back upon that system of notification and adopt some quite different system, as is suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Middleton)—that we should adopt the local authority record as being a notification. If that were done a great many people would suffer greatly because in many cases there are no records. In other cases some records are comparatively concise, while others are in this sort of form—"a fair amount of damage," "very considerable," and words of that kind which convey nothing of any sort, kind or description.
I have samples here and have looked through many to see what sort of records they are. One sees a whole row of a street against which appears "very considerable," "very considerable," "ditto," "ditto," "ditto," down to the bottom of the street. Obviously that sort of information cannot be of very great value though the War Damage Commission always use these records wherever they can in order to check up the claims put in and to see whether they are substantiated by any local authority records.

Mrs. Middleton: In the Motion to which I referred the phrase used is:
where the claimant advised the local authority of the occurrence at the time, and the authority have a full record both of the damage and of repairs carried out by them.

Sir S. Cripps: It is obviously impossible to apply to one or two local authorities quite a different procedure from that applied to the rest. One or two authorities have quite good records. They would not themselves say that those records are complete but what there are are quite good. But one cannot pick out people in particular areas and say, "We will apply this system to you and


another system to others." These records can be used as the War Damage Commission use them in order to confirm or otherwise claims that are put in. They cannot possibly be substituted for the notification laid down in the regulations.
I was saying that in the spring of 1947 a more rigid system was introduced as regards the acceptance of late notifications. That system was continued with a perhaps gradually increasing severity as time passed. We have now reached a period more than five years after the last bomb was dropped. This matter was discussed in the last Parliament on a number of occasions. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) that the whole matter has been frequently gone into and I myself have looked at it three or four times to see whether it was desirable or possible to make any substantial change.
The position now, after these five years since the last bomb damage could have occurred, is that the Commission are still accepting late notifications where there is some acceptable reason for the extraordinary delay—because the delay must be over five years now—and where there is substantial structural damage still unrepaired which is agreed to be, or admitted to be, or found by the Commission to be war damage. Those cases are still being admitted, and during the six months ended 30th June, 1950, some 1,200 to 1,300 new notifications were accepted in whole or in part.
There is another class of case. There are certain special cases where the reason for delay is quite exceptional—I think that one such case was mentioned by an hon. Member—where the Commission may accept notification for non-structural damage; that is, repairs to plaster and decorations, which are of the nature of ordinary maintenance repairs and therefore very difficult to distinguish as war damage. Such, for instance, as a case where property was requisitioned before the bomb was dropped and the person had not an opportunity, because it was still requisitioned, of seeing that a bomb was dropped. Those exceptional cases are still admitted. In these circumstances the House will understand that this discretion which is specifically left by the Act to the War Damage Com-

mission must certainly be left with the Commission.
I am sure that that is right because I am sure it would be wrong to expect Ministers to deal with each of these individual particular cases and decide, whether for their own supporters or for the Opposition, that they should admit a particular case in a particular constituency. Certainly I would never be prepared to discharge such an onus or such a liability, because I am sure it would be wrong to ask Ministers to do it. Further, I think we can say we are all content that the War Damage Commission should, for the present at any rate, continue to admit late claims on the basis upon which they are now admitting them, though some day we must, of course, come to the end of this process. We cannot go on for ever and ever admitting claims, and before too long we shall have to fix a definite date and say, "No more claims at all." We shall have to give proper notice before that is done so as to get in the final claims.
The only area in which I think we might ask the War Damage Commission to look into the possibility of some slight alleviation is in those special cases where the reason for delay is quite exceptional. That is to say in a case as mentioned by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton, of non-structural damage, which they now admit. She will be glad to know that the case of Mrs. Thomas has been admitted as a very special case because there was thought to be satisfactory proof that Mrs. Thomas had been completely misled by a local government official. Though perhaps the right thing would have been to bring an action for damages against the Plymouth Council for their negligence and callousness, we thought that rather hard on Mrs. Thomas and that perhaps hers was a special case.
I think the War Damage Commission would be quite prepared to look at these very special cases, and quite exceptional cases, in which they can accept notification for non-structural damage; not with a view to any broad or wide extension, because that would at once let in an absolute flood of new claims, many of which would be false claims and many of which it would be absolutely impossible to check up; but to see whether, in the hard cases that are brought forward, there are any individual cases where this principle could be applied and so grant some slight


alleviation in addition to what has already been granted.
I think if we leave the matter like that, leaving the discretion with the Commission and asking them in special cases to examine a little more carefully whether perhaps, in a few cases, they should not be admitted where they have held rigidly hitherto that they could not be admitted, we should satisfy the justice of this case both as regards those who claim and, let me say it, those who have to pay.
Do not let us ever forget that in our generosity it is not our money we are giving away but that of somebody else. When I come to collect that money and ask for the powers to tax in order to get it, the atmosphere of the House is quite different from what it is tonight. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite will feel that we can all be satisfied that the War Damage Commission has done a first-class job; that the vast majority of the people who have been claimants have got a square deal and that, though there may be some hard cases as there must be in a complicated system of this kind, the Commission will do their utmost to see that those hard cases are as few as possible in future.

9.52 p.m.

Brigadier Clarke: I am sure that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House will feel great disappointment at what the Chancellor has told us about not countenancing any more claims at this stage. I have enormous numbers of bomb damage cases sent to me every week. The Chancellor has raised hope in many people's breasts tonight, and we will be inundated with lots of applications. He has not told us what cases the Commission will or will not accept. Of all the instances which I have put to the Commission the only one which was approved was where a lady is both blind and deaf. That was considered a reasonable excuse for not having filled in the form. Apart from that, I have had no success whatever. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have told us on what grounds he is prepared to approve claims in future.

Mr. Pearson (Treasurer of the Household): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DRAFT CENSUS ORDER

9.53 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I beg to move,
That paragraphs 5 (b) (iii) and 11 (b) of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Draft Census Order, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th June, he approved.
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of this House if, in considering this Motion, we were to have a rather wide discussion and to include the general subject matter of the Draft Order which comes up for consideration immediately afterwards.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the House would be willing to have a general discussion on this Motion. Of course, if it is so wished, I could call the Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. R. V. Grimston) for a Division.
[That the Draft Order in Council entitled the Census Order, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th June, be not submitted to His Majesty.]

Mr. R. V. Grimston: That arrangement would be agreeable to us and I think it would be for the convenience of the House. I take it that under the arrangement, it would be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to reply to the Debate in addition to making an opening speech.

Mr. Speaker: That is all right under our rules.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I think it is understood that in accordance with the Census Act of 1920, a Draft Order in Council was laid before Parliament on 15th June. It contained proposals for three main categories of information: first, for the date when the census is to be taken; second, for the persons by whom and in respect of whom the returns are to be made; and, third, for the particulars to be stated in the returns themselves.
This Draft Order is the subject of this Prayer this evening, but, in so far as the scope of the particulars asked for extend beyond the matters which are specifically referred to in the first five items of the Schedule to the 1920 Act, it is required that an affirmative resolution should be moved in the House to give authority for these particulars to be asked for. As I


think it will be agreed in all parts of the House, there has been an unusual gap since the last census was taken in this country, now 20 years ago, and because of the length of the period, and also because of the importance of accurate information for the development of our general social services, it is clearly more urgent than ever that we should have up-to-date and accurate information to help us to judge the general population trends.
The proposed list of inquiries, which is somewhat larger than in 1931, but not much larger, has been decided only after considerable discussion between the various Departments affected, and all the questions are confined to simple matters within the knowledge of any person in the country. I would agree with any hon. Member who said that, in a matter of this sort, it is of the greatest importance to get the willing co-operation of the general public, and we are more likely to get that willing co-operation if the questions are short and simple than if they are long and complicated.
At the same time, it is desirable that we should secure by this means the information that we are all agreed is essential if we are to have a proper backing for future estimates for our social service work. In fact, the form of return which the householder will be asked to complete will be only very slightly larger than that used in 1911, or, indeed, that of 1931.
With regard to the general question of the confidentiality of the return, which is a matter of great importance, all answers given are covered by the general protection afforded to census information, which is treated as strictly confidential throughout; as I think hon. Members will know, all concerned with the census may incur substantial penalties for any abuse of the information. That is set out, indeed, in Section 8 (2) of the 1920 Act.
It would be of interest if I were to say a few words particularly about two questions which we are asking in this census and which require the affirmative procedure; that is to say, questions not covered by the specific items mentioned in the Schedule to the Census Act, 1920. In item 6 of that Schedule, it is laid down that particulars may be required in respect of:
Any other matters with respect to which it is desirable to obtain statistical information

with a view to ascertaining the social or civil condition of the population.
It is under that provision that we are asking two particular questions which require the affirmative resolution of the House tonight. These questions which we are asking will be found printed in italics in the Draft Order laid before the House.
The first of these inquiries is in respect of each married woman under the age of 50, and the question asks, if married more than once, what is the month and year of her first marriage. Marriage and birth particulars were asked for in the census of 1911, but not in the census of 1921 or that of 1931. In fact, it has been customary to vary the particulars asked for in different census returns. I understand that it was assumed in 1931 that these particulars would be asked for again in 1936, but in fact, the contemplated census of 1936 never took place. This particular question which I have mentioned—the inquiry as to the date of the first marriage—is regarded today as an essential part of the inquiry concerning general birth trends.
In recent years, as will be well understood, there have probably been an exceptional number of re-marriages following divorce and also, of course, following widowhood. It is vital, in these circumstances, to find out the number of children born from the time the woman was first married and the total number of children born of her marriage, or marriages. It would obviously be rather illogical merely to have the number of children born of her last marriage. We want to relate the total births to the whole married life, and there is no doubt that that would be not only of great value, but almost essential for any proper estimation of birth trends in the country.
I should point out that we are not asking some questions which might, indeed, be rather difficult or embarrassing for people to answer. For example, we are not asking how many times anyone has been married. We are not asking for particulars about illegitimate children, or anything of that kind which, I am sure, would be regarded by this House as being of an embarrassing nature and difficult to ask the public to give. All the questions on the census paper are very simple and direct questions which will


provide the essential information, and, at the same time, will not cause any difficulty to those who have to answer them.
There is one further question which requires the affirmative resolution of the House, and that deals with education. The question asked is, in respect of every person following or seeking to follow an occupation for payment or profit and who is not retired, the age at which full time education in an educational establishment finally ceased. One of the questions about education is repeated from the 1921 census, and the other question about education is addressed to those who are attending schools or other educational establishments and asks whether they are so occupied full-time or part-time. The new question is concerned only with the date at which full time education ceased, and, as I have said, no provision is made for any question of this character within the Schedule to the 1920 Census Act, apart from the general provision of paragraph 6 of that Schedule.
The reason for the inclusion of this question is that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education requires this information to help him to determine what types of education should be provided. The answers, together with those on occupation and age, would be used to discover what occupations are, in fact, followed, and at what ages, by those whose education ceases at various ages, and what position they hold in such occupations, for example, professional workers, managers, foremen, technicians, and others.
I understand that attempts have been made to obtain this, or similar information, from the schools, but it is incomplete and difficult to classify and, in any case, it is confined to what the pupils themselves express as their intentions. The question is also needed in order to throw some light on the demand for accommodation at technical colleges and other establishments for further education, including training colleges and universities, and to find out to what extent the demand is now being met.
I think that will make it clear that in this census we are not intending to overburden the general public with a mass of unnecessary or unreasonably inquisitive questions. All these are questions that have been asked before in other census

returns, or have been included in the census requirements of other countries such as America. In relation to this general question of trying to ensure that the number of questions is kept down to a reasonable limit, I have here a copy of a recent American census return, which I should hesitate to suggest should be adopted as a copy for this country.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Glasgow, Kelvin-grove): Read it.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I do not want to take up the time of the House by reading out the whole particulars. It is obvious that other countries go into much fuller details than we do in these census returns. To get the fullest co-operation, we desire to keep the size of the return and the information asked for down to reasonable limits. In view of the length of time since the census was last taken, and the very important function that a census of this kind does perform, both in providing information to our main social service Departments and, indeed, in providing the most valuable material for social historians and others, I hope the House will agree to give this affirmative resolution their support.
In looking back through the records, I was interested to see that in the Debate that took place in the House on the Census Bill, in 1920, a cordial welcome was given to it by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). At that time he insisted, very properly, upon the value of the information that would be provided by a census of this type, on medical and other grounds. I trust, therefore, that every effort will be made by hon. Members on both sides of the House to ensure the willing co-operation of the general public in this census, because there is no doubt that without that willing co-operation the value of the census itself will be very much reduced.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: Perhaps I should explain that unless the Prayer that the Draft Census Order be not submitted to His Majesty had not been put down, it would not have been possible, under the Rules of the House, to discuss the whole question of the census which we are desirous of doing. I am sure we are obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing a broad discussion


to take place on the affirmative resolution, in order that we may not have to divide the Debate into two parts.
At first sight, it does appear not unreasonable that, having regard to the fact that the last census took place in 1931, there should be another one now, 20 years later. In spite of that, I and some of my hon. Friends have some comments to make in connection with the holding of a census next year. In the first place, it is going to cost a good deal of money, and, in the second place, it will cause annoyance to a considerable number of people, particularly in these times when there is so much information being asked for by the Government in many directions. As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, if the census results are to be of any use it is necessary to get public co-operation, and I think therefore the public have got to be satisfied that holding a census next year is reasonably necessary.
To take first the question of cost, I understand that the cost of this census is to be in the region of £14 million. In passing, I might mention that the cost of the 1931 census was a matter of £400,000. It was considered worth while in order to save a smaller sum of money to do away with the six-monthly register of electors, and in considering whether this expense should be incurred next year it is well to bear that fact in mind, because the withholding of a six-monthly electoral register is a not unimportant matter. Is the census really so urgently required as to have it held next year?
There is another point which I want to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. Are not these questions seeking a great deal of information which is already in the possession of other Government departments and which could be extracted from information and statistics which other Government departments have, without having to come to the public for that information? Since 1931 we have seen the introduction of universal compulsory insurance which brings in a good deal of information to the Ministry of National Insurance. We have registration cards and ration books. We have had and still have the call-up. There is far more information in the hands of the Ministry of National Insurance, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Food than in 1931 or at the time of any previous census.
What I want to know is: how far have the Government considered this before deciding to hold this census next year in order to add to the information? I think it would be helpful to illustrate the point if I went through some of the questions which I will do not seriatim but as they occur in the second schedule. The first one I should like to mention is the information which is being sought from married women. This is perhaps digressing slightly because it is not upon the point of information in the possession of other Government Departments, but it happens to come in this order and I will therefore take it now.
I did not quite follow all that the hon. Gentleman said about this matter concerning married women. It seems to me that if a woman has been married twice the complete information is available, but if she has been married more than twice there appears to be a gap. 1 am not suggesting that the questions should be made still more pressing, but I am wondering whether the question as it is so framed will give all the information that the hon. Gentleman thinks it does, and, that being the case, whether this question ought not to be reconsidered. Perhaps when he replies he will deal with that point.
The next point I would make concerns the question under heading No. 10 in the second schedule. It seems to me that some information is sought which is already in the possession of the Government. To take only one, as an illustration-10 (b, i)—whether out of work. The Ministry of Labour have all that information; they know the numbers out of work every month when they make up the figures. That seems to be an illustration of information being sought which is already in the possession of a Government Department. If hon. Members will look at Question 10 they will see other instances of the same thing.
With regard to Question 11, and particularly 11 (b), which the hon. Gentleman mentioned tonight, I do not see what the information will give him for what I would call future planning. All he will obtain from this is the position which people occupy having had, or not having had, various types of education. They might have reached their position for a number of causes, quite apart from the kind of education they had, and I do not see what use the Ministry of Education


will make of the information supplied or that it is necessary to lengthen the form by inserting it.
Let us look at 12 (b), which seeks information about a piped water supply, a kitchen sink and so on. I will hazard a guess that the information is already pretty completely in the hands of the local authorities. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary disagrees with me, but most local authorities certainly have information about piped water supplies. That is another instance where I believe the hon. Gentleman could obtain information, if he took some trouble, without going to the public.
My hon. Friends will probably give further instances, but I think I have said enough to question whether the Government have given enough consideration to this, and whether a great deal of this information could not be obtained from Government Departments, who already have it in their possession, instead of through the census. It will certainly make for better co-operation from the public if they can be satisfied that the Government arc not in many directions asking for information which they already have if they like to look for it.
I turn now to the proviso in paragraph 3 about confidential returns. The wider these questions go, particularly in the case of the proposed questions to married women, then the more important it is to see that the arrangements for confidential returns are not only known but are well known and that it is easy for people to avail themselves of such arrangements. The proviso says:
Provided that any person claiming in the prescribed manner to make a confidential return shall, subject to the prescribed conditions, be deemed to be the person by whom the return is to he made with respect of himself.
When will these prescribed conditions be made known?
In this connection I have with me the regulations issued for the 1931 census. I am sorry to trouble the House, but I must read the relevant paragraph. It says:
For the purpose of the proviso to Article 3 of the Order, a person shall be deemed to be the person by whom the return is to be made with respect to himself notwithstanding that he is not a person mentioned in the second column of the first Schedule to the Order if he is of full age and is a person mentioned in paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 of the first column of the Schedule.

In the first column of the First Schedule, which is the same in this Order as it appeared in the 1931 draft Census Order, the persons referred to in paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 are persons present at midnight in the dwelling where the return is to be made by the head of the household, and the persons present on the premises of any hotel where the return is to be made by the manager or other person. That seems, as far as I can see, to exclude anybody in the other categories—3, 4, 5, and so on—which include people who may be in hospitals or nursing homes, or on board ship, or people—and they are particularly mentioned—travelling to Ireland, and so on, from making, if they wish, confidential returns.
I want to know if it is proposed in the regulations which are coming out that that should again be the case, and whether the possibility of making confidential returns will be restricted to the persons in the first two paragraphs of the Schedule, or whether arrangements will be made, having regard particularly to the wider questions being asked, for people in some of those other categories—I do not say, necessarily, those in prison—but in some of the other categories to make confidential returns. Another question I want to ask in this connection is, If such a confidential return is made, will it go to the local enumerator, who may be the local postmaster, or someone known locally, or does it go to headquarters, so that there is no question of the information, which a person wishes to keep confidential, becoming known locally?
I should be very glad if the hon. Gentleman could, in due course, reply to some of these points. I would end, as I began, by asking specifically if the Government really have gone into the question as to how far the information which they are asking for here is not already at their disposal, because if it is, I believe that, so far from getting the necessary cooperation over the census, the Government will not get co-operation, and if they do not, the value of the census will be largely destroyed.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. John Hay: I admit at the outset that I am not against the principle of taking a census in this country, but I feel that this is a very inopportune time for a census to be taken. I want to elaborate to the Parliamentary


Secretary some of the reasons why I think this is an inopportune moment, and why I hope the Government will think again about this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. R. V. Grimston) has explained to the House some of the points of view which we hold on this side; and, perhaps, I may be allowed to elaborate them.
There are two main reasons why I think this census ought not to be taken now. The first is that I have not heard, despite the persuasive speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, any adequate reason why the census is necessary at this particular time; and I certainly have not heard any clear explanation of exactly what use is to be made of the information obtained by this census. I think we acknowledge on both sides of the House—we hold differing views as to the wisdom of it—that the Government's powers in these days are very extensive indeed. They are very often for the purpose of obtaining all manner of information. I do not think it would be putting it too high—it would not be overstating the case—to say the British public today is regimented and documented far more than any other people in the world, except, possibly, those behind the Iron Curtain; because in this country we have a system of compulsory registration for all sorts of information which, I should have thought, was easily available to the Government.
My hon. Friend has mentioned one source of information open to the Government if they want statistics. He reminded the House of the national registration which is still in being, despite the rather contradictory remarks of the Minister of Health and of the Home Secretary. Apparently the National Register is still to go on for some time yet. There is also the registrar of births, marriages and deaths, who, I should imagine, has a tremendous amount of statistical information about fertility and population trends,—and this, we are told, is the main reason for this census—which could be given to the Ministry of Health if they want it. Again, there is the Registry of Divorces, which has information easily obtainable by Government Departments. The Ministry of Labour could, I imagine, from the resources and files at their disposal, give a mass of information about employment and the nature of different types of

occupation in which people engage in this country.
So far as certain of the questions dealing with housing in the Second Schedule are concerned, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman's own Ministry, and certainly local authorities over which he holds sway, would have had much of the information demanded in, for example, question No. 12, where a person is required to state the number of living rooms in which he dwells, and also
whether the household has exclusive or shared use of a piped water supply…a kitchen sink, a cooking stove or range, a watercloset and a fixed bath.
I should think that local authorities, who, up to now, have been the valuation and rating authorities, should know where houses have all these different amenities about which information is required by this census.
I turn for a moment to another aspect of the position. For some time there has been in this country an organisation directly under the control of the Cabinet called the Central Statistical Office. I see from the Civil Estimates for 1950-51 that the Central Statistical Office employs no fewer than 17 people, officers of various grades and categories, whose total salary bill for the current year will be £18,157. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us, when he replies, what these people have been doing. Have they been earning their salaries? If there is a Central Statistical Office costing the country £18,000 a year, they should be collecting and drawing together all the sorts of information that I should imagine this census is intended to obtain.
My hon. Friend mentioned a number of the questions, and pointed out that in his view some people might object to answering the questions in the form in which they are posed. I would say that some of these questions are downright impertinent, and I can imagine a great many people having very rooted objections to answering questions of the nature put forward.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Mr. Blenkinsop indicated dissent.

Mr. Hay: Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary takes a different view, but I say that people will object very strongly to being asked, for example, whether they were more fertile after their second marriage. That is the sort of question which is being asked in this document.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the hon. Gentleman read out the question which asks for that information in those words?

Mr. Hay: The Parliamentary Secretary is quite right in that it does not ask for it in those words, but that is obviously what is intended, and that was what I understood him to say when he was opening the Debate. If I have misrepresented the position I at once withdraw, but that was the impression I got.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The hon. Gentleman said that he regards some of these questions as downright impertinent. I think those were his words.

Mr. Hay: Yes.

Mr. Blenkinsop: He will realise that the actual wording of the questions is a matter of very great importance, for we do want the co-operation of the general public. I therefore ask him again to give us specific instances of questions which he thinks to be impertinent.

Mr. Hay: As I have explained to the House, in my view some of these questions are impertinent, not so much possibly in the form in which they are asked, but because of the sort of information they are directed to obtain, and also the sort of use which will be made of that information.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Which questions?

Mr. Hay: In particular, the questions I had in mind were those relating to marriage.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Yes, but which ones?

Mr. Hay: I want to pass, if I may, to another subject which, in my personal view—

Mr. Blenkinsop: Which questions?

Mr. Hay: If the hon. Gentleman presses me, I would refer him to question No. 5, and, in particular, to No. 5 (b, iii), which he wants the House to give him affirmative power to put; and also question No. 6. This relates to information which many people, possibly of a more retiring nature than the hon. Gentleman himself, might think it rather impertinent to ask.

Mr. Blenkinsop: But why?

Mr. Hay: I have done my best to explain to the hon. Gentleman. If he dis-

agrees with me perhaps he will put his point of view when he replies.

Mr. John Hynd: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the suggestion he is making about this kind of question—that the information it extracts will be put to some nefarious purpose—will be extremely alarming in the country? He really ought to be more careful of the words he uses in making that kind of suggestion, because it will be broadcast.

Mr. Hay: That is precisely the point I asked the Parliamentary Secretary. We have not been told yet what use is to be made of this information. If we had that on which to base our speeches, then possibly none of the disturbance which has agitated the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. B. Hynd) would arise.
I want to pass to the next point which, in my view, is even more important, namely, the question of cost. My right hon. Friend referred to what I believe is the estimate of the Minister. It is going to cost £1,250,000—that is, over three times what it cost in 1931? It is estimated that the central clerical staff is to be about 600—the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—and that 50,000 enumerators are to be employed. These figures are based on information given to the Press some time ago. Where are these people to come from? In these days of full employment, where are we to find 50,000 enumerators? This is a waste of taxpayers' money.
I think the census should be postponed. In the Civil Estimates for this year the Minister asked for £10,800 for a census in England and Wales and Scotland and now he wants a great deal more. Later I expect we shall have a Supplementary Estimate. Hon. Members opposite have chided us for not telling them what extravagant and wasteful expenditure we should cut. Here is an example. I urge the Government to postpone this grand snoop until a little later when the taxpayer is better able to afford it.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: On the whole I think there is a case for a census at the present time and hon. Members do a disservice when they suggest that the information could be used for a wrongful purpose or that the census is in the nature of a snoop.
A census has been authorised by this House since 1920. It has been suggested that the information required by the census might be obtained from Government Departments or local authorites, but I feel that such methods might be even more costly and troublesome than getting it from the people themselves. It is always much easier for those with personal knowledge to give that information. It is far easier for a person to say what kind of accommodation and amenities he has in his house than for some local authority to say so.
I do not want to deal with the general question this evening. I want to refer to paragraph 4 of this Draft Order, which says that
The returns shall state—
(c)in the case of all persons with respect to whom returns are to be made in Wales (including Monmouth), the additional particulars specified in Part III of that schedule.
Part III of the Schedule gives
Additional particulars to be stated in returns made in Wales (including Monmouth)
1. In respect of persons aged 3 years or over, whether speaking Welsh only or able to speak both Welsh and English.
If I may have the attention of the Minister for a moment, the point I wish to make is this: if we are to try to find out whether a person's sole language is Welsh, we must obviously ask that question in the Welsh language. It is no use putting a question in English before him, asking him if he speaks Welsh only. That being so, I want to obtain an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that these questionnaires will be available in Wales in the Welsh language.
After all, there are, particularly in my constituency and in Caernarvon-shire, several thousands of Welshmen, who for earlier census have had special forms prepared for them. There are Welshmen whose knowledge of English is imperfect, and who would prefer, for the sake of accuracy, to fill up the questionnaire in Welsh. Furthermore, it is the right of every Welshman, if he so desires, to answer the, questions in Welsh rather than in English, even though he might well be able to do it in English. For these reasons I will support this Order if I can obtain the assurance for which I ask. Failing that, I shall not be able to give it my support.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Parker: I should like to support this Order. I was rather surprised to hear the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay). We have had censuses in this country since 1801, and no doubt exactly the same arguments were used in this House at the time of the first census in 1801 as we have heard here to-night.

Mr. Hay: But the hon. Gentleman omits to state that in 1801 we did not have taxation at the rate of 40 per cent. of the national income.

Mr. Parker: Nevertheless, I am certain that the census of that day cost a considerable amount of money and probably cost a similar proportion of the total expenditure of the nation at that particular date.
It is 20 years since last we had a census because of the war, and there is much information which we want to check and bring up to date, especially that information which is collected year by year by Government Departments and the Registrar-General. There is need for a comprehensive check from time to time, and as there has been 20 years instead of the usual 10 between the censuses it is high time we had one in order to provide a thoroughly comprehensive check of our statistics. The hon. Gentleman said that some of the information being sought was impertinent. What is impertinent in finding out about marriage and fertility in this country? We are asked from time to time to consider new social legislation, such as family allowances to increase the birth rate, but unless it is based on accurate information sensible legislation cannot possibly be introduced. To have accurate information of that kind it is desirable to have it collected in a census if it can be done.
I had the pleasure of working for some years for the Merseyside Social Survey run by the University of Liverpool. We collected a sample survey of information on Merseyside and district from one in every 30 houses. We collected this information voluntarily. We got a 93 per cent. return, and that information was collected by school attendance officers. Many of the questions we asked would be considered impertinent by the hon. Member opposite. One was how many dead children the woman had had; but they


did not object to answering that question. It was an important one, if we were to find out the total size of families and what the death rate among children was, and it was also important when related to the age of the woman answering the question.

Mr. Hay: Were the answers compulsorily obtained? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the point.

Mr. Parker: The answers were voluntarily collected. It was a delicate question, yet we found that it was a reasonable question which, when it was explained to the people, they did not object to answering. I am certain that the people will not object to answering these questions, if the Press adopts a constructive line and explains to the people why we are seeking information at the census.
We had at the beginning of the century a comprehensive survey carried out in London originally by Dr. Charles Booth, which lasted more than 17 years. This survey collected information on the incomes of the poorest people. Only thanks to that information were we able to have satisfactory legislation to introduce old age pensions. That was information gained by asking some very awkward questions. When we are considering reform of the census we need to think of the social problems with which we may have to deal, so that in the census we may ask questions which will give information that will be useful in dealing with those problems. I welcome therefore the fact that we are asking for information which will be useful in dealing with problems such as housing.
I would like to support the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) in regard to information about the speaking of the Welsh language. I suggest that we ought also to ask about the speaking of Welsh in the County of Shropshire. There is quite a bit of Welsh spoken there around Oswestry and it would be useful to have information about its extent.
I am not at the moment making any suggestion for altering the border of England and Wales, but I remember an occasion when it was suggested that the City of Chester should absorb a certain new housing estate which was in the county of Flint. All hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies strongly

objected and the Bill was thrown out. The main argument advanced by the Minister of Health, who was not then holding that position, in opposition to the Bill was that it would mean the stealing of a piece of Wales. But I do suggest that it would be useful to have that information in regard to Shropshire, and possibly in regard to other border counties, so that constructive suggestions about the border could be put up if required.
This Order refers to Great Britain, and I would like to ask whether it applies only to the United Kingdom. What happens, for instance, in places like the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands? Who makes the Orders for a census in those areas? If this Order applies to these places, 1 would like to suggest that information should be collected in those islands about how far French and Manx respectively is spoken. I hope the House will support the Order.

10.43 p.m.

Captain Duncan: The hon. Member who has just spoken referred to surveys made by various bodies. What he did not quite make clear, until he was question upon it, was that they were all voluntary censuses. This census is compulsory. There is provision for a fine for filling in the form wrongly, or for not filling it in, of up to £10, which makes this quite a different matter from a voluntary survey.
There are certain questions which I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, if he will be good enough to listen, because I am not at all convinced that this census is necessary at present. Is it not possible to obtain the names, sex, ages and residences, of everyone in this country from the National Register? Taking these questions haphazardly, I would refer to question No. 6 (a) in the Second Schedule. That deals with children born in marriage. What is a child born in marriage? Does the term include an illegitimate child whose parents legitimise that child subsequently by marriage? There is no mention of this on the form. It may include an illegitimate child, or it may exclude such a child, for all I know.
Then there is question No. 6 (b) of the Second Schedule. That asks whether a married woman under the age of 50 has given birth to a child since the 9th April,


1950, but surely the information can be easily obtained from the registrars of births, deaths and marriages throughout the country. With regard to question No. 2—the relation to head of family or other person by whom the return is to be made? What is the use of that phrase? I can quite understand if the object of the question is to obtain a picture of the size of families, but that is not the way in which this question is phrased. We may have the case of a single person living with a housekeeper; what is the use of that information then? I would like to refer to question No. 8; why do we want this information about where people were born—whether it was in Britain, or Norway, or somewhere else? What use is the Government going to make of that? If no use is being made of it, then why include it in the census?
There were some questions left out of the 1911 and 1921 censuses which are now included, but I see no reason why they should not be left out of this one without any difficulty arising, unless the Government are going to make use of the information when they have it. Question No. 10, concerns employment—what profession, trade, manufacture, or other occupation, one is in. Surely this is all in the hands of the Ministry of Labour. If not, then it must be with the Ministry of National Insurance because we are all insured as employers or employees in one form or another. Then we come to question No. 11. I should have thought that the education authorities know all that should be known about part-time or full-time attendance in an educational establishment. So far as question No. 12 is concerned, as has already been mentioned twice, surely that information, despite the Parliamentary Secretary shaking his head, must be in the hands of every local housing authority which is worth its salt. I am certain it is in the hands of my local authorities. Then there is this information about a piped water supply, and so on. My local authorities have all this information.
Now one question about the general regulations. Is it clear—if it is not
I hope it will be made so—that the enumerator, in dealing with the number of rooms in the house, has no right to enter the house to count the rooms? He has the rights to make certain inquiries

to check the figure in the Schedule, but I am one of those people who still believe that an Englishman's and a Scotsman's house is his castle in spite of all the thousands of snoopers allowed to enter private property today without notice.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: What about a Welshman?

Captain Duncan: This is one of the occasions when we should stand up for the right of the private person to keep his home inviolate. I want to be assured that the enumerator has no right to enter the home. Paragraph 3 deals with the confidential returns, and I remind the House that the arrangements made for the 1931 census covered only the first two classes, as explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. R. V. Grimston), that is to say, those living in private households and in hotels, boarding houses, and so on. They were allowed confidential returns but not those in nursing homes, hospitals, ships, and so on. They were apparently not allowed confidential returns.
I would like to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury said in asking that there should be an extension of that confidential return to other categories named in the First Schedule. There is another point on this confidential return. The arrangements made at the last census, as I understand it, were that when a person asked to make a confidential return he was given a slip of paper in addition to the schedule. He was told to fill up the particulars on the slip and put that, with the schedule, in an envelope. That was handed to the local enumerator when be came back to collect the information. Then the local enumerator's job was to open the envelope and copy the particulars on to the schedule. In other words, it was only confidential in so far as the head of the household was concerned, or the hotel-keeper or boarding-house-keeper, but it was not confidential to the local enumerator.
We have progressed, we hope, since 1920, when the Act was first passed. We are more civilised, more intelligent, and better educated. At least, hon. Gentlemen opposite always pride themselves on the progress this country has made. It should be possible, therefore, to make arrange-


ments that that envelope should be posted to headquarters, wherever it may be—London, or Edinburgh, or Belfast—so that the envelope should be not only confidential as from the head of the household or the hotel-keeper, but also from the local enumerator as well.
I agree there are penalties for disclosure of particulars by the local enumerator. At the same time everybody living in the country knows that although the information is not given away, there is an uneasy feeling, particularly in cases where the confidential slip has been asked for, of disquiet and anxiety that skeletons in the cupboard will be known to men's and women's neighbours. I think special arrangements in this year of grace 1950 should be made so that the envelope should not be opened by the local enumerator but should be sent direct to headquarters, so that the envelope may be one of thousands and that the headquarters could open it and fill in the schedule themselves.
Those are the questions I want to ask and I now want to make some general comments. The first comment, which has already been made, is that this is a costly experiment at this time. It is costing £1,250,000 and the time—

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the hon. and gallant Member call this an experiment? It has been going on since 1801.

Captain Duncan: I quite agree. If the hon. Gentleman does not like the word "experiment," I will say that it is a costly item of the national expenditure. In view of all the queries I have asked about the need for this expenditure and in view of the other methods of obtaining the information, I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is, in his opinion, really necessary to ask all these questions in 1951? The second point I would like to make is: Why not postpone the census now and have a review of the 1920 Act to see what information can be left out and see what is really necessary for the Government's purpose.

Mrs. Eirene White: The census is a scientific process. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has mentioned postponing the census, and another hon. Gentleman has also mentioned postponing it. Will he let us know what is the scientifically desirable year to which they would have it postponed instead of 1951?

Captain Duncan: As a census was postponed in 1941, I do not think really we can labour this scientific point very much. After all, the Registrar-General appears to be perfectly able to forecast, at any rate, to detail, particulars of people in this country with extraordinary accuracy in spite of not having had a census since 1931.
I do not believe that if you ask people to answer a whole lot of questions now you will necessarily get a very accurate or scientific return. In 1920 when the Act was passed there were practically no forms to fill in and conditions were completely different. In 1931 there were no forms to fill in. The country is fed up with tilling up forms and people want to avoid, if possible, the filling up of another set of forms if they can help it.
I do not believe that you will get that complete co-operation that the Parliamentary Secretary asks for. In any case you will not catch people like deserters and black marketeers and other avoiding National Registration any more than you have been able to catch them under the National Registration procedure. The Registrar-General has been quite capable of counting the population fairly accurately in the last few years, from year to year and local authorities are able to supply fairly accurately any information which Government Departments have not already.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: As the hour is late and I wish to try to be brief I will not labour the point about the need for having another census very soon. There are many reasons why we should and there are also many reasons why the cenus should be held in 1951. It will be 20 years since the last one and it will give us a statistical rhythm if the next census is held 20 years after the last.
I think hon. Members will remember that the Royal Commission on Population was sadly handicapped in its labours owing to the lack of much of the information which will be asked for in this census and that it had to embark upon a very elaborate process of getting information voluntarily, over a smaller area than the whole nation, upon which to base its conclusions. I am sure all students of social affairs will agree that the information


about family life and the basis for forecasting social and educational and housing needs is becoming very pressing now.
I rose chiefly to put forward three suggestions to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. First, I think it is very desirable to avoid asking for too much in the census form; I think it is possible and I hope—though I may be wrong—that the public response to the next census may be greater than to the last. Since then we have passed through a period of much form-filling and, whatever the reasons—and I make no comment or complaint about that at this moment—I merely say that it is possible that there may be some public resistance to a census which asks for more information than the public think is necessary. I therefore urge my hon. Friend to keep down, so far as possible. the number of questions asked. We all know that when Government Departments ask for information, they almost invariably ask for too much and it is very necessary that some curb should be put on this statistical information which may well find its way into the census form. That being so I say, keep down the amount of information needed.
Second, I think it is desirable to explain to the public why this information is being sought and the reasons for the questions—and to explain, also, some of the purposes to which the information will be put. That, I think, will help to secure their co-operation; and I think that in doing so it may be necessary to explain why it is we want to know the month as well as the year of the woman's marriage. I confess at the moment I do not appreciate why it is desirable to know the month as well as the year, for the purpose of ascertaining the fertility of a married woman throughout the whole course of her married life, where she has been married more than once.
Further. I do underline the question asked by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) who asked why it was necessary to know the parish as well as the county. To what purpose is that information to be put? Again, what is the point of asking an employee to state the name and business of his employer, or, if out of work or retired, the name of his last employer?
I hope some regard will be paid to this aspect of the census because success does demand full co-operation from the public. I suggest that in a nation-wide form-filling operation it is desirable to take a pilot survey; first of all to try the form out—to "try it on the dog" so to speak —to discover any difficulties of approach or in the wording of questions, which may later lead to a good deal of misunderstanding and information improperly given. I think a pilot census over a limited field is a very desirable prelude to undertaking this on a nation-wide scale. As one with some knowledge of trying to explain form-filling to the public, I hope that these suggestions will be considered.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Garner-Evans: The speech to which we have listened has been one of the most instructive in this House tonight. I only wish to make two small points. The first is in regard to the proviso to paragraph 3 of the order. The person who is to fill in this form will be the head of the household. People are, on the whole, quite prepared to give all the information at their disposal to the Government for the sake of the nation, but the head of a household may be a nasty snooper. Often people share a house but they are not willing to share their secrets about age. marriage, and other little details. I want to make the simple appeal that when the Government come to put this provision into practice they should give every opportunity to ordinary people to have a little secrecy, and that the form is not sent to the head of the household for completion in respect of all the occupants. I do beg the Government to see that people maintain that decent privacy which is our heritage.
There is a smaller point on Part III. I agree with the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts), who asked that this be printed in Welsh. If we are to have the census in Wales we must have the form in the Welsh language. How can you expect answers to questions about piped water or water closets unless they are put in the native tongue?
I ask that this point should not be confined to Wales and Monmouthshire. I want to know how many Welsh-speaking people there are living in England—how many of us have been driven from


our homes. Why should we not find out how many Welsh people are living in Hammersmith, or in Glasgow? I ask the Government to make Part III general, so that we can find out how many Welsh-speaking men and women there are in the British Isles. Then when the time comes for building up better understanding and better culture, we shall have the facts.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. John Edwards: While I would not presume to follow the hon. Member in his quest for knowledge about the number of Welshmen in England, I am in full accord with the sentiments he expressed that we should discuss things of this kind on the basis of fact and not of conjecture. The difference that has shown itself in two of the speeches we have heard from the other side is wholly to be deplored. One hon. Gentleman said that we are more civilized, more intelligent and better educated today. That view is not in accord with the obscurantist arguments that have been advanced against holding a census at all. If it is said that it is not opportune now, when we have not had a census for nearly 20 years, it is difficult to see when there should be a census.
Anyone who has had anything to do with any research in the last five or six years cannot deny that the research worker is up against the fact that we have not had a census since 1931. The amount of money that has been spent because we have not had a census is probably greater than the cost of the census itself. The Department with which I was once associated—the Ministry of Health—is a case in point. We have already had the instance of the Royal Commission on Population. Every private research organization has been under the great disadvantage of spending a large amount of time and money. Look at any of the learned journals—those of the medical profession, for example—and you will find people spending much money and man-power time to get information which would have been there if we had an up-to-date census. Hon. Members opposite are not serving any useful purpose, and may, in fact, increase resistance, if they throw doubts on the "worth-whileness" of the census.
Many people in the community—it is not merely Government Departments, but local authorities, and so on—need this up-to-date, accurate information, and I

certainly know from my own experience that the information which is to be asked for in the census is not available at the present time, or, if it is available, can be obtained only by an enormous amount of digging—and that digging means spending money. Government Departments, Royal Commissions, Departmental committees, private research bodies, are spending an enormous amount of money because we have not an up-to-date census.
I think some of the suggestions that have been made from both sides of the House should be taken into account, and in particular I would say that it is important that we should prepare the ground very carefully. In the case of the 1931 census we had what I thought—and I was very interested in it at the time—a very good amount of preparatory work done by the Government and by the B.B.C. I recollect that I myself took part in a broadcast discussion on an admirable pamphlet that was issued by the B.B.C. at the time about the census, and about the need for it.
However, I would ask that hon. Gentlemen opposite should not now, at this stage in our history, go back on the idea of considering things on the basis of fact. It is wholly in the public interest that controversy—political controversy—should be on the basis of fact. Until we have an up-to-date census we shall not have the kind of facts which will illuminate a number of our discussions, and I hope, therefore, the Order will go through, although I am sure my hon. Friend will take into account the very many constructive suggestions that have been made during the Debate.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Summers: Those who have preceded me have made a good many of the points that I should otherwise have made. Therefore, I do not propose to detain the House for many minutes. I should like to refer, first of all, to the items of lesser importance, namely, one or two of the questions which it is sought to justify asking in the census. When my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) described some of the questions as downright impertinent some exception was taken on the other side. One of the questions he had in mind was that asking a married woman who has married twice what was the date of her first marriage. Now, the only


reason, as I understand it, why such information is called for is, to compare the fertility of the first and second marriages.
I am bound to say that I look with the utmost suspicion on those who seek to gain information on that point, because it can be used only if certain results are obtained, for interfering with the marriage laws. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem surprised when I say that information about the fertility of first and second marriages can only be of value if it is to be used for some planning purpose. If it is not to be used for some planning purpose there is no point in asking for it, and if it is to be so used I look upon it as a highly suspicious prospect.
I turn now to the question of education. We were told, I think, by the Parliamentary Secretary that the reason why that question was necessary was connected with the Minister of Education, who wished to know, from the information so provided, the type of education which it was thought desirable to provide. Were he to ask those who are likely to go forth into the world what were their prospectus and ideas, I could understand it: but to ask people of 30, 40, 50 years of age when they last left school, and to use that information for some specific purpose —well, I find it very hard to understand what value it can have. Then there is another question which may, perhaps, be considered a little indelicate—whether people have the habit of using their fixed baths exclusively or share them with someone else. I do not know what the result will be, but no doubt it will be something interesting.
The main point I want to make is this: the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. John Edwards) took exception to some of the fears expressed on this side. The Parliamentary Secretary has only himself to blame if we on this side voice the doubts and misgivings which I am certain are in the minds of many members of the public as to the need for this census. If he had realised that the spending of £1,250,000 was an important thing, and that asking people a lot of questions needs real justification, if he had made it his business to anticipate some of the questions which the public are asking already, he would not have

found so many doubts expressed on this side.
The Parliamentary Secretary asked for the co-operation of the public in this matter. If there is to be a census, I hope that the public will co-operate. When we are told that in challenging the wisdom of the Government we are deliberately sabotaging the co-operation of the public, I am not prepared to admit that on this or any other occasion. I hope, therefore, that before we conclude this discussion, we shall have a great deal more information and justification than the Parliamentary Secretary thought fit to impart to us in order to remove those misgivings which prevent the co-operation of the public.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: In replying to the discussion, I confess I am surprised at the tone of the speeches of many hon. Members opposite. I had imagined, perhaps naïvely, that the issue of whether or not a census was desirable had been argued and settled many years ago and that there was common agreement that it was essential in the widest sense for the work of the Government and for the information of the public that it should be possible to obtain the essential facts about ourselves as a nation. I find, from many of the speeches of hon. Members opposite, that they take an opposite line. Although they often say to us, "Why do you not give us the facts?", when we set about ensuring that the facts shall be made available, they seem to challenge the propriety of asking the necessary questions.
The real issue is that it has been agreed on all sides that we must have accurate information at regular intervals. I think it is a great pity that it was not possible, for obvious reasons, to carry out a census in 1941. As my hon. Friends behind me have pointed out, the lack of information that would have been provided by a census in 1941 has caused the greatest difficulty to the Royal Commission on Population and many other public and private bodies who, without this information, are simply unable to reach the conclusions they desire.
Many speakers have suggested that it is possible to obtain the information needed from other sources. The answer is that it is not. We have looked very carefully into this matter to see whether


it would be practicable to avoid asking some of the questions, but it is either not possible to obtain the information at all in the form in which it is asked here, or it is impossible to relate it to the other information that is being obtained in the census. For example, it was suggested that we have information about those who are unemployed. The Ministry of Labour has, of course, information about those who register as unemployed. But that is not necessarily completely accurate information about the total unemployed, and the actual location of these people in the country. There may be some who did not register: we know that is a fact, but we want to relate that information to the other information provided for in the form.
I find that a great deal of the criticism has been directed not so much against the principle of the desirability of establishing the facts, and having the census taken periodically, but to the suggestion that in our present circumstances we ought to defer the census in view of the cost that is involved. I think my hon. Friends have adequately answered that point. If we did not indeed proceed with this census we might find that we were involved in much heavier total expenditure in trying to secure from other sources this necessary information for the variety of purposes required by the different Ministries. The cost of £1,250,000 would be spread over a long period —from three to four years—because it is not to be wholly expended actually in the census year, but will, naturally, be partly related to the work on the information obtained. It is, of course, valid to point out that this census has already been postponed over long, considering its value to the country as a whole.
A point was made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westbury (Mr. R. V. Grimston) about the additional question we are asking about the date of the first marriage. He asked whether this would be valuable in view of the fact that there is bound to be some gap between the dates of one marriage and another, and whether that would not invalidate the information collected. It is true that there is bound to be such a gap, but on examination it is agreed that, in spite of that fact, the information collected will be of the utmost value. Indeed, one could properly argue that there may be occasions in recent years

owing to service abroad where a greater gap may be represented by the absence of a father than that between the close of one marriage and the beginning of another.

Mr. Summers: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, can he say what is the object of asking this question only of women under 50 years of age?

Mr. Blenkinsop: As has been mentioned already, we are anxious to relate the number of children to the period of marriage, and that cannot be done unless we have the information about the first marriage.

Dr. Hill: I appreciate that point, but I cannot understand why it is limited to those families in which, at the time of the census, the woman is under the age of 50.

Mr. Blenkinsop: That is a perfectly fair point. It is simply because there was a sample family census made by the Royal Commission on Population which did provide information on those over 50 years of age and there have been considerable changes since in the position relating to those under 50. Obviously, there was not so much stability among those under 50 as in those over 50.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith (Glasgow, Hill-head): Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith (Glasgow, Hill-head) rose—

Mr. Blenkinsop: 1 do not think I can give way now.

Mr. Galbraith: 1 appreciate the hon. Gentleman's courtesy in giving way. The only question I wish to raise has to do with women who have married twice. The hon. Gentleman says he wants to know about this. Has it not occurred to him that some of these women may not want this known? Why should they be forced to give this information just to satisfy the curiosity of the Government? The hon. Gentleman and the Government, it seems to me, always come down on the side of the State. They do absolutely nothing to support the legitimate desires of the people.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I thought the hon. Member wanted to ask one question. He has gone on rather long.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. T. Galbraith) is taking advantage of my having given way to make a speech. I think the point is


fully covered by the fact that the Act under which we are working, the Census Act, 1920, gave power for a very wide series of questions to be asked. We are certainly keeping well within the confines of that Act. To attempt to import purely political prejudices into this subject, is, I think deplorable. I think most hon. Members do understand the importance and value of the information we are collecting, or propose to collect, in this census. It has no relation to any political issue whatever. I would have hoped that hon. Members opposite would have had the good sense to avoid raising these matters in this Debate.
Hon. Members opposite have asked about the confidential returns, which is a most important matter. We are arranging for a full review of the circumstances in which confidential returns can be made. and we will take into account suggestions which have been made as to whether or not the categories of persons permitted in the last census to make a confidential return should be extended. I think some valid points were made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about this matter. It is essential, it seems to me, that those returns should go to the local enumerator, as he must be in a position to check the information provided. The local enumerator has not power of entry as has been suggested. On the other hand, there is the obligation on the householder to give the information required. It is obviously essential that the enumerator should be able, in order to play his part. to check the information made available. If these confidential returns were merely sent to London it is probable that a good deal of the information would have to be sent back to the area for checking.
Another matter raised by some hon. Members was why questions were put down in the Schedule regarding the place of birth. This is simply because we are anxious to obtain further information about migration and movement of population in the country. One of the main values of the census returns is that that information should be made available. Although a great deal of information is collected today which was not available in previous years, it is still true that that information is not complete and is not fully reliable for the purposes for which we need it today.
It is, therefore, essential that we should have, at regular intervals, the opportunity to obtain a complete return of this nature that can be of value to the general public as well as to the Government. I would say, finally—although I should have thought that it needed no emphasis—that, in fact, none of this information is used in relation to any person or family. That is, I believe, perfectly well understood and known by the people. It is needed for general statistical purposes of the utmost importance, and I ask the House, once again, to give this Order its full support in the knowledge that, with the help of hon. Members, we can ensure that the census is fully available.
I fear that I have missed one question: 1 have just remembered that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) asked if we would provide for the form of return to be available in the Welsh language. We shall certainly do that wherever it is necessary or desirable.

Mr. Hay: Why is it that on this census we are to spend three times as much as in 1931? Will the hon. Gentleman give me an answer?

Mr. R. V. Grimston: We have had a very wide discussion on this Order and, in view of that, I do not propose to move the Motion standing in the name of myself and my hon. Friends.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That paragraphs 5 (b) (iii) and 11(b) of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Draft Census Order, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th June, he approved

TEA SUPPLIES

11.32 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 18th May 1950, entitled the Fats, Cheese and Tea (Rationing) Order, 1950 (S.1., 1950, No. 796), a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, he annulled.
In view of the fact that it is just after half past eleven I shall be very brief in moving this Motion. For those who are interested, since Statutory Instrument No.796 was laid, Order No.1071, amending this, has also been laid; but that only deals with varieties of cheese and, as my concern is solely with the tea part, I


shall make no reference to No. 1071, which is consequential on this other which is now under consideration.
Under this Order, the tea ration is cut from two-and-a-half ounces to two ounces a week. This has caused a great deal of perturbation among the housewives; and, I might say, among builders who now drink tea, I think, with too great frequency—but that is merely in passing. The cut, I understand, is because there is not enough tea in stock. or being. imported.
I have looked up the Trade and Navigation Returns for the first five months of this year; I have not seen the June returns, although I saw them mentioned in the Press this morning; but during that period we imported 139 million lbs. of tea. If my arithmetic is right, the two ounce ration involves 300 million lbs. in a year that is, for the domestic ration, and if the ration is the same, we shall import tea equal to the domestic ration. But, as those who took part in the debate last Friday will know, a good deal is consumed outside the household; how much in restaurants, and so on, I do not know, although the total of 500 million lbs. put to me is, I think, an exaggeration.
It is the case that the present rate of importation is only just enough to meet the domestic ration. Therefore, the Minister of Food is compelled to propose this cut. I want to know why he is compelled to propose this cut, because if he had made better arrangements about the importation the cut would not have been necessary. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell me why they have failed to arrange for the importation of more tea. It may, of course, be that the Dutch have been pushed out in Indonesia through the action of what I may call the "Insecurity" Council at Lake "Failure". The British and American Governments, at the right moment, had not forced the Dutch—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] Certainly; Java is a very important source of tea. If it had not been for the action of the British and American Governments in stopping the Dutch when they were clearing up Indonesia, far greater supplies of tea would now be available from that part of the world.
Apart from that, I understand negotiations in Ceylon have not been too successful and we do not appear to be getting enough from Assam. I am not a

tea expert but a moderate consumer. However, the people of Britain are very perturbed about the cut in the tea ration. Is there a world shortage? I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us. I know that as the result of the Great War the whole of the American people acquired a new tea-drinking habit, and it may be that the people of the United States are drinking more tea. It may be that there is a slight increase in the European countries which, in the past, used to drink coffee but now drink tea. We are the largest tea consumers, I think. of the white countries in the world and I know of no real world shortage of tea. There is a shortage of tea in this country. Maybe there is a shortage of brains in the Ministry of Food, because it is a shortage of brains which has led to the short-age of money. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] Yes, why not say it? The Parliamentary Secretary has to justify himself and we will find out whether my accusation is sound or unsound.
The largest consumers of tea per head of the population among the white people in the world are the inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Australia. If my information from the Press is right, tea rationing was completely abolished in Australia the other day. If the Australians suddenly decide they have all the tea they want without any rationing at all, it rather indicates there cannot be quite the shortage of tea in the world. There is in this country, I know. The amount that was in bonded warehouses on 30th May, I think it was, according to the Trade and Navigation Returns was one-and-a-half million lbs. There may be stocks of tea not in the bonded warehouses, but the only disclosure of stocks we have are the figures shown at the end of the Trade and Navigation Returns, where there is a table showing the quantities of goods in bonded warehouses. and the amount of tea is trifling.
Therefore, I assume there is a shortage of tea in this country and unless that can be corrected, it is obvious that the Ministry have to cut the ration. Why is there a shortage of stocks of tea in this country? Having regard to the matter I have already mentioned, that in the last ten days Australia, where they consume more tea per head of population than in any other country with a white population, has found it possible to abolish tea-rationing, I hope I shall get an answer.

11.39 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I beg to second the Motion.
It is, of course, a matter of great concern to everybody that this tea ration, which means so much to the people of this country, should be reduced in these days when one was hoping that things might be getting better. It is a fact that in every respect in which they have got better it is where the Socialist Government has given up its Socialist principles. We should realise that Mincing Lane, where for five years in my very young days, I served in a very junior capacity among the tea-brokers, produced tea of the finest qualities and of qualities at varying prices in unlimited quantities for the people of this country.
In no country in the world was tea more in demand or was there a better choice of it or more reasonable prices for it or where tea was more "get-at-able" by all grades of the population. Yet, here to-day, we are reducing this miserable ration of 3 oz. to 2½ oz. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] It makes no difference, when it is being reduced, whether it is 3 oz., 2 oz. or one ounce. It is being reduced by a Government which professes to be looking after the interests of the people of this country.
Is it really not obvious that if in those days of peace, Mincing Lane could produce tea in those unlimited quantities at reasonable prices and with all those varying qualities, now, five years after the end of the war, if we were to have free enterprise in tea sales it should be possible to do very much the same thing, though perhaps not quite the same thing. I think that is not an unreasonable thing to suggest. It is perfectly obvious that the buying organisation of the Government has failed to produce tea for the people of this country in the required quantities at reasonable prices.
Would it not, therefore, be more reasonable to suggest that, instead of reducing the ration like this, the Government should go to the people who are experts in it and have been experts for generations, and say, "Can you take it over?" There is no genuine necessity for reducing the ration of tea as laid down in this Order. I ask the Minister when he comes to reply to tell us what are the reasons why he is not prepared to let the trade

which understands this go in for tea as it used to, under all the due safeguards which the Government has in its hands and so produce the tea for the people which is so urgently wanted.
I think they should have that tea because it is purely a matter of an organisation which understands it obtaining it instead of an organisation which does not understand it.

11.43 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I support my hon. Friends in praying for the annulment of this Order. I do so on the form of the Order and not on the general grounds, though I may say, in passing, that I remember, many years ago, that the late Sir Charles Higham, when a Member of this House, persuaded the people of this country to drink more tea and conducted a very important advertising campaign across the Atlantic to persuade the United States people to drink more tea.
Now in those days we had an abundance of tea but something has happened in this changing world. Whether it be through the loss of our Dominions and Empire Dependencies, or whether it is through the mismanagement of our affairs under the Ministry of Food, none the less the people who once had more tea than they could consume are now persuaded to limit their consumption to 2 oz. instead of 2½ oz. That seems a deplorable position for a Government that was to usher in an age of plenty, and joy and happiness for the people.
I am more concerned, however, to attack the actual instrument itself because, as the Motion says, we are praying against the whole of this particular Statutory Instrument No. 796.
A few days ago I had occasion to address the Association of Certificated Grocers: they are the cogs in the distribution machine to whom this Statutory Order applies. I want to criticise the form in which these Statutory Orders are cast, and to which this is no exception. I defy a person of ordinary intelligence —and I challenge those persons of intelligence who are grocers—to say precisely if they make much of this Order, this Instrument to guide them in their important functions. It is full of obscurity. Some of the clauses to me, at any rate, are actually meaningless.
I would support that assertion by drawing the attention of the House to some of the items. In the front of the Order, on page 1, I cannot complain of the definition given to butter, except that it is simple to the extent of almost being silly. It says it
means the substance usually known as butter.
It does not strike me as being particularly clever, nor does it convey any valuable information to my friends the grocers. Having been told that butter means the substance usually known as butter, the Order proceeds, under headings (a), (b) and (c), to a description of cheese. This definition is "'cheese' means cheese of any variety or description." I suggest that these descriptions are either redundant, superfluous or silly. When we come to page 3, I notice an irregularity in the description. At the top of the page the paragraph reads:
Any appropriate coupon in a Weekly Seaman's Ration Book…
I do not think much of the educational standard at the Ministry of Food. It would be better phrased as "a seaman's weekly ration book."

Mr. H. Hynd: It depends on how one spells it!

Sir W. Darling: It does not matter how it is speak whether "weekly" or "weakly." It is, in my opinion, misplaced in this Order.
The last of my illustrations is this. My friends the grocers—and I number many of them among my acquaintances—engaged in their complicated business of distribution under the Ministry of Food, have to be informed and know what cooking fats really mean. While butter and cheese are defined so simply that a child could understand them, I do think the definition of cooking fats raises a more practical difficulty. We are told they mean:
…any fat or mixture of oils and fats… having a melting point which, when determined by the method specified in the Fourth Schedule to the Oils and Fats (No. 2) Order, 1949(c), is no less than 30 degrees centigrade…
My friends the grocers are not greatly informed by such a statement, or helped much by such profound scientific processes being elaborated for their information.
I would also draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the fact that there are no fewer than 14 references to other Acts and Statutory Rules and Orders. He will find four or five other references at the bottom of page 1 to which the intelligent grocer, anxious to discharge his public duty, must refer and study. Throughout the Order there are references to other Acts of Parliament or Rules and Orders, and I am attacking generally the whole form of this legislation. I suggest that something simpler, more useful and more intelligible should be supplied for 3d. for the guidance of the grocers and the public.
If I wanted to clinch the argument I would turn to the Explanatory Note at the back. I thought, in my simplicity, that this was a note of explanation. That, doubtless, is the view which you would hold, Mr. Speaker. We should both be mistaken, and if you will read this Note you will see that my criticism is justified. It begins:
This Note is not part of the Order, but is intended to indicate its general purport.
So far, so good. What is the general purport to my friend the grocer? It says:
This Order, which is to he construed as one with the Food Rationing (General Provisions) Order, 1950, re-enacts the Fats, Cheese and Tea (Rationing) Order, 1949, as amended, with alterations providing for the use of the new ration documents valid in respect of the rationing year beginning on 21st May, 1950.
Here follow four lines which I need not read. I will recapitulate, and say that the lines I have read, plus the four lines I have not read, are described as an Explanatory Note. I am reminded that the Duke of Wellington was walking in civilian clothes in Hyde Park one Saturday morning, and was accosted by a Yorkshire gentleman, rather like the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), who said to him, "Good morning. Mr. Smith, I believe." The Duke replied, "If you believe that you will believe anything." If one believes that this is an Explanatory Note one indeed would believe anything.
I would further like to say that the division of the Order into Parts I, II, III, and IV seems odd and confused. Part I is said to deal with provisions relating to fats, cheese and tea. One would think that Part I would deal with fats, cheese and tea. Not so. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister have divided


this opening part into three further parts: Part II is relating to fats, III relates to cheese, and IV relates to tea. Why all this elaborate setting forth of mutually controvertible observations and instructions? I am satisfied that the public are tired, and this House is tired, of Statutory Rules and Orders.
This is not an exceptional example. Anyone who is a curious collector of the literature of this unhappy year should make a collection of these documents. They constitute nothing less than a monument of futility, obscurity, irritation and annoyance, by which His Majesty's Government try and carry on a difficult, complicated, and, to my mind, unsuccessful administration. In supporting this Motion I go far beyond my hon. Friend. I want to have done with this kind of thing for good and all. I want a short, simple document—and I would help to compile it—for the guidance of grocers. If the hon. Member would do that he would do a public service.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Frederick Willey): The House is always obliged to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) for the entertainment he gives us. I will certainly accept his invitation, and will have a word with him. This Order re-enacts earlier Orders, and I have every reason to believe it is well understood by grocers. They have not made any representations on the alleged ambiguity of the Order, so we may well consider them satisfied. The House is obliged to the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) and the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) because they give me an opportunity of explaining the position about our tea supplies. I thought the position was well understood in the country. The hon. Gentleman said, he is not an expert on tea—which he made abundantly clear—and the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire must have been in Mincing Lane a long time ago.
This Order reduces the ration from 2½ to 2 oz. a week. When the ration was increased in December it was on the expectation that we might be able to maintain the 273x00BD; oz. ration until midsummer, and we have been able to do

that. What we tried to do was to give the consumer the benefit of such supplies as are available. We do not endeavour to maintain any more than what are prudent stocks. This is the broad position —and I will explain it with a figure or two in a minute.
The broad position is that tea supplies in the world are not sufficient to match the present demands for tea. That is due, on the supply side, as the hon. Member for Croydon, East, said, to the fact, at least in part, that Indonesia is producing only about half—perhaps, rather less than half—of the supplies of tea she produced before. That means that the world is short of tea. We hope that as soon as possible we shall be able to get increased supplies of tea from Indonesia. That is only one side of the picture. If we turn to the demand side, the world demand for tea has been running at unprecedentedly high levels. It is due to several factors. There has been increased consumption of tea in the United States, as, I believe, was referred to. The United States have made far bigger demands for tea supplies than they have hitherto.

Sir H. Williams: Is tea rationed in the United States?

Mr. Willey: No. Let me say at once that tea is only rationed in this country. I will come back to that in a moment. The shortage of coffee has accentuated the demand for tea, particularly in the United States; but, apart from the United States, tea consumption has increased in the Middle East and Far Eastern countries; in fact, the local consumption of tea in the tea producing areas has increased from 112 million lb. pre-war to 190 million lb. in 1949. Over and above that, the position is—I think we should realise this—that we were prejudiced regarding tea procurement by devaluation. It affected the position of tea in India and Ceylon.
Against that, what should we do? We should surely endeavour to buy all the tea we could at reasonable prices, though I am sure everyone would agree that two factors should govern our operations. I am sure everyone in the House will agree, particularly anyone who has got any experience of Mincing Lane, we should not do that by going on to the Colombo tea market. That would have sent prices rocketing beyond our reach. I do not think anyone can have any doubt at all


about that, because the position regarding tea supplies in the world is that the demand by the United Kingdom for tea is so large-—it takes such a substantial part of the total supplies of tea in the world—that any such attempt to have obtained the tea would have not only sent up prices of marginal tea, but would have affected the whole of the tea requirements of this country.
What we did was to continue what we did before, working under this particular formula of large scale purchases, to offer an increased price, and we succeeded in persuading the Governments, and, in turn, the planters, to accept that moderate price increase. In that way we are getting a substantial part of the tea supplies of the world at a moderate increase in price, and we have avoided what happened in other countries to which reference has been made.
I will give figures to illustrate what I have been saying. It is no good comparing this country with other countries regardless of the demand we make upon world tea supplies. It is estimated that we shall call upon the tea producing countries for 415 million lbs. of tea. What is the demand of the United States? It is for 90 million lbs. Australia has been mentioned. The Australians are very big tea drinkers, but, of course, there are only 8,000,000 Australians. Australia and New Zealand's demand is only 65 million lbs. of tea. That demonstrates the important effect of the United Kingdom demands upon world supplies of tea.
Let us see what the effect has been at the retail price level, because that is the price level which affects the constituents of hon. Members in this House. In the United States the retail price is 11 s. 6d. a 1b. In Canada it is 6s. 10d. a lb. In Australia it is 6s. a lb., and carries a subsidy of 2s. 8d. To round off these figures, the average price of tea in this country is 4s. l¼d. a lb., carrying a subsidy of 9¼d. These are the comparable figures.
Against these figures, it is obvious that we had deliberately to make one choice or another. We could have bought tea at any price. That would inevitably have had one of two results—either to drive the price of tea beyond the pockets of the people with less money, or to have brought upon us a subsidy which would have been out of all comparison wth the other food subsidies. Or we could have

said that the most reasonable course was to limit the consumption of tea to the pre-December, 1949 figure, and should press—

Sir H. Williams: I am interested in these prices. The United Kingdom price is 4s. l¼d., with 9¼d. subsidy, that makes 4s. 10½d. The Australian price is 6s., and the United States, 1ls. 6d. I presume that these people have all bought their tea on the same wholesale market. Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain why it is the Americans must pay more than twice as much as the wholesale price in a market internationally regulated?

Mr. Willey: The figures I give include the subsidy. I apologise for having mislead the hon. Gentleman. I gave the whole figures and indicated the subsidy, in order to get the average prices. I have given the figures all one way, so that they are comparable.
We have not bought tea on the tea markets. The Americans and Australians and Canadians have bought their tea on the tea markets. We have bought our tea through the formula, which has been explained several times in the House, of fixed prices with tenders being made by planters. I do not want to weary the House with figures, but these prices have been substantially below market prices ever since the markets opened in 1947. I do not try to avoid the conclusion that we might get more tea, at high prices, by going on the market. But we have to choose which course we are going to follow. I think we followed the reasonable and proper course.
I conclude by saying that, although I cannot go very far on this subject, in view of your Ruling, Sir, the question of the opening of Mincing Lane is closely related to this. We have to be in a position to have adequate stocks, to have a reasonable price level against which to operate. If we can ensure these things, then we can hope that we may be able to proceed with the London Tea Auction, as the Minister has already indicated. So far as the domestic consumer is concerned, she must agree, I am sure, that we have followed the course she, as a prudent housewife, would have us follow.

12.5 a.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): I cannot say, for my part, that the Parliamentary Secretary's speech satisfied me that he had discharged the


heavy task which must fall on a Minister of the Crown who, five years after the end of the war, has to stand at that Box and defend a reduction in an important part of the national diet.
We cannot but look at this matter against a background of other countries in which freedom to purchase is increasingly being given. It is a curious thing that a Minister should find himself standing there to justify a cut in British rations five years after the end of the war. I must say I should have thought rather more apology, rather more expression of regret, would have been fitting from a Minister who found himself in such a position.
The Parliamentary Secretary must face it. This reduction has come as a serious blow to a great many people. Many people found the old ration barely enough. This is a serious matter for them. It is not good enough for the representative of the Ministry that have imposed that hardship to come here tonight and say, "We have a wonderful system for purchasing tea and the only difficulty has been that it reduces the quantity we get."
Against that background it seems to me the Parliamentary Secretary must say a great deal if he is to meet the general irritation and indignation this step has caused. As he was speaking, it seems to me he touched on the difficulty. The system which he described with so much satisfaction is a system under which the demand of infinitely the biggest tea consumer in the world is concentrated through one buyer, the Ministry of Food. Is it surprising that when that buyer goes into the market he easily finds the price raised against him, and is not the price difficulty, which the Parliamentary Secretary admits is at the root of this matter, manifestly due to the system which he has used? I take it that he does not dispute the fact that tea is there to be bought. The only reason why he does not buy is because of its price. This is an extreme example of the folly of that system.
Here we have a demand for 415 million lbs. of tea against a demand for 90 million lbs. in America and 65 million lbs. in Australia— quote his own figures. It is obvious that if that is all worked through one buyer that buyer is going to be met by precisely the difficulty of a

rise of price to which he refers. It does not follow that if that demand was supplied through a whole variety of buyers the variety of buyers could not get the increased supplies without the increased price which would undoubtedly meet the Ministry of Food. Out of his own mouth the Parliamentary Secretary has provided the most damning indictment of the system he and his Ministry have operated. I say to him this: if he and his Department cannot get at a fair price for the people of this country the same proportionate share of the tea supplies of the world that other systems bring to people of other countries, it is time he and his department got out and let somebody else have a try.

Sir H. Williams: It is now ten minutes past twelve, and as the Parliamentary Secretary has convinced me that Socialism means unequal shares for all, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave. withdrawn.

MALARIA CONTROL, AFRICA

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wilkins.]

12.9 a.m.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I feel it is appropriate that tonight, as a forerunner to the debate tomorrow on Colonial Affairs, we should be discussing malaria control in Africa. No colonial administration can possibly be successful unless a prominant place is given to the health of the Colonies. I put down this subject for discussion this evening because I happen to be a member of the Industrial Advisory Committee of the Ross Institute. One of the duties of that body is to review, from time to time, the progress which is being made in combating the various tropical diseases throughout the world.
One matter which stands out from a review being carried out at present is the great discrepancy between the progress which has been made in malaria control in Africa compared with the rest of the world, Africa unfortunately lagging badly behind the achievements elsewhere. It is no part of my purpose this evening to approach this question from a party point of view. What I want to


do is to try to divide my remarks into three sections: first, to give a summary of world progress; secondly, to give a factual statement of the position in Africa; and thirdly, to offer a few suggestions which I hope the Government may see fit to employ, by which the present position in Africa can be materially improved.
During, and since, the war there is no doubt that the world, through scientific progress, has made enormous strides in its ability to tackle this problem of malaria. The factors responsible for those strides have, I think, been three. First, the discovery and development of the disease-preventing, or prophylactic, drugs, such as paludrine, meppecrine, and drugs of that type. But we have to remember that they are merely stop-gaps; they prevent an individual from contracting malaria, but they do not actually prevent the mosquito from biting the individual, through which malaria is transmitted. The real task is to eradicate the fundamental cause of malaria. The second factor has been the discovery of the residual insecticides, such as gammexane and D.D.T., and the development of modern techniques in the use of them.
The third factor which is worthy of our attention is the setting up of the World Health Organisation, which is an offshoot of the United Nations, with its anti-malarial sub-committee, the task of which is to try to help all nations which ask for its help to combat malaria. One of the methods by which that sub-committee tries to do this is by making available demonstration teams of experts which are prepared to go to countries which may ask for that help, and which need it. But before the malaria sub-committee is prepared to send a team to an individual country there is one vital condition which must be fulfilled, namely, that that country must signify its willingness to carry on the anti-malarial work after the team has withdrawn.
There are seven teams working at present and they have achieved considerable success. In Brazil, 15 million people have been protected from malaria; 500,000 have been protected in British Guiana; four million people in Venezuela; five million have been protected under one of the Indian schemes, and six million have been protected in

Ceylon. I think that it is worth drawing special attention to the efforts made in Ceylon because they are typical of what can be achieved through the proper handling of this malarial problem.
D.D.T. residual spraying was started in Ceylon in 1947, and the results are apparent in the figures for the death rate. Deaths per thousand in the last ten years were at the beginning of the period about 21–21.0, 21.8, 18.8, 21.4, 21.3, 22, and 20.3, are some of the figures for the years immediately before 1947. Residual spraying with D.D.T. was started in 1947, and there was a most remarkable drop in the death rate. Instead of being around 20 or 21, the death rate fell to 14.3; and in 1948, the last year for which figures are available, it was 13.2. Therefore, there is no doubt that in some parts of the world, and in Ceylon in particular, great progress has been made.
The sad part is that when we come to look at the Colonial Empire in Africa, it provides a distressing contrast. Professor Macdonald, Director of the Ross Institute, said on 11th October, 1949,
In making such a review it is impossible to blind oneself to the fact that the list of major works does not include anything in East and Central Africa.
That is in spite of the fact that malaria is every bit as prevalent in Africa as anywhere else in the world. It is a major public health problem and its incidence exceeds 60 per cent. in most parts of tropical Africa. I know that there have been a number of small schemes, but they have been confined to the towns, in the main, and have been on nothing like the scale required if malaria is to be swept from the African Continent, as it must be.
The really disturbing feature is that where good work has been done it has occurred in those Colonies where there has been strong political pressure brought to bear, such as in British Guiana, Cyprus, or Mauritius, or in self-governing countries such as India, Ceylon, or Venezuela. If, as seems apparent. it is political pressure which is the major factor in getting things done, then I and my hon. Friends on this side of the House …and I think we shall have considerable help from hon. Members opposite…will do all we can to bring that political pressure to bear. The Government may expect a barrage of proddings, urgings. and questions in that direction.
I know we may be told that there are difficulties in Africa which prevent more active measures being taken. One of the excuses offered, and one which makes me blush, is that the Africans acquire an immunity to malaria. To gain immunity in this way is a risk to which one would not put one's own children: it is not fair to ask the Africans to put their children to it. To say that by being exposed to malaria they obtain immunity is, I think, as heinous as to suggest that it would be proper for the people of Britain to drink tubercular milk so that we might develop tubercular glands and joints and thus might acquire an immunity from pulmonary tuberculosis. One factor which is very significant is that members of the self-governing countries will have nothing to do with excuses of that kind.
I believe that there is some possibility that the Malarial Committee of the World Health Organisation may be going to meet in East Africa this autumn. I ask the Minister whether that is so. I hope it is. Before that conference takes place, I suggest to the Government that one of the really valuable things they can do is to ask the World Health Organisation specifically to make a report on the protective immunity in Africans and to assess its value to the African community and also to assess the cost to the community in acquiring it. I believe that if the World Health Organisation is asked by the Government to make that report, we shall scotch once and for all that appalling excuse which is such a discredit to those who make it.
Then we are told that the size of the African Continent is a prohibiting factor from doing anything effective. India has very much the same problem and has tackled it effectively and. as I pointed out, in one of the Indian schemes five million people have been protected. So I do not think there is much in the excuse about the size of Africa making it necessary for us to sit still and do nothing. It is suggested as an excuse that research work is going on. That may be, but none of these excuses is valid or adequate to account for the failure to set up a major scheme in Africa for tackling the malarial problem.
I therefore appeal to the Government to institute without further delay major schemes, one for East Africa and one for

West Africa, much on the lines of the schemes tested elsewhere and found so successful. We have the experts in this country. We have all the facilities to put these schemes into operation and there is absolutely no excuse why schemes on these lines to cover the large rural populations of the African Continent should not be started.
I believe that it is a serious indictment that we, with our large Colonial Empire, should find ourselves being outstripped in this effort to combat malaria by countries with much less experience than ourselves in Colonial government. We must cease our present attitude of being like the Duke of Plazatoro and leading the regiment from behind because we find it less exciting. We should be in the forefront in the development of malarial schemes. The only justification for colonial administration is to do it well and put all the effort we have got into it. If this Debate succeeds in kindling the public conscience and if it sets alight a train of action that will save the lives of some of His Majesty's African subjects, it will not have been in vain. I therefore appeal to the Government to get on with the job and start anti-malarial schemes which will make Africa lead and not be led, by other nations.

12.24 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Cook): We are obliged to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) for raising this very important subject. I assure him and the House immediately that the need for political pressure in this instance is not so urgent as he seemed to indicate. There is no one more alive to the problem than the Colonial Office, allowing for the fact that we have to know a great deal more of this position in Africa because there are difficulties in Africa which do not apply to other areas.
It can be said in general that there is a marked improvement in the health situation in Africa as a result of more effective control of what is still the chief killing disease in the world. The benefits of this control are twofold: firstly and particularly, from the health point of view, and secondly from the economic point of view. Elimination, especially in rural areas, involves a corresponding increase in general productivity, particularly of food supplies. Eradication from


Africa in areas favourable to settlement and development means a tremendous asset to the welfare of mankind.
I want to stress the fact that the Colonial Governments and His Majesty's Government are fully alive to this very serious problem of effective control. We are alive to it, and complete eradication is the ultimate aim. Since 1940 over £600,000 has been provided from Colonial Development and Welfare Funds for control schemes in these territories. More than £250,000 has been devoted from the same source for research into insecticides and for drainage and irrigation. In addition to these figures, considerable amounts have been provided by the Colonial Governments themselves. This gives a reliable idea of the size of the problem and the importance attached to its solution.
The problem of malaria control in Africa presents greater difficulties than does the same problem elsewhere in so far as there are in Africa two types of malaria-bearing mosquito One breeds under shade and the other in the open: thus neither bush clearance nor artificial shade is efficacious. The African malarial mosquito is peculiarly difficult to control. A great deal of research is still required before a progressive and enlightened anti-malaria policy can be formulated.
In mixed communities the standard of control has risen steadily during the past 10 years. In large centres malaria risk has been reduced to a negligible level and there has been steady progress in smaller centres. Progress largely depends on the standard of training of the African staff and careful attention is paid to this aspect. For example, the East African Malaria Control Unit was set up to train Africans, to engage in a study of malaria generally and to provide specialised technical advice. These are all things on the credit side. Control measures are an essential feature of medical plans in African territories.
Considerable progress has been achieved in the larger centres of population by clearing the streams, permanent drainage, oiling and the use of other anti-larval methods. Gammexane and D.D.T. are employed wherever practicable. There has been a spectacular decline in malaria incidence in the Lagos area of Nigeria resulting from the completion of the large-scale drainage scheme initiated

in 1942 to protect Service personnel and taken over by the Government in 1946 and run by the Lagos Town Council, since 1948. Four thousand two hundred acres have been reclaimed and the channels dug have extended to 130 miles. The value of this scheme is incalculable, both as regards the general health of the local inhabitants and as a guide for the future.
Extensive control operations are being undertaken in Freetown and here the main attack is by larvicidal methods. A major scheme is being planned for the reclamation of 30 square miles of swamp breeding ground surrounding Bathurst in the Gambia. In Kenya the Insect-Borne Diseases Division has successfully applied modern methods of residual spraying to houses in rural areas in the highlands.
With regard to research, in Uganda two experiments are being carried out under the guidance of the Colonial Insecticides Committee on the control of malaria by spraying. One, which has been conducted for four years. resulted in a reduction in the incidence of malaria by 50 per cent. Much research has been completed, and is in prospect, in Nigeria where the malaria service is organised within the framework of the medical department. At Ilaro, in Southern Nigeria, we have a typical example of a congested community in a hyper-endemic malaria zone where a residual spraying campaign is in progress. In this area some 1,500 houses have already been treated. As a result, a vast amount of information has been obtained, and it is hoped to extend this project to other areas.
Another difficulty has been that antimalarial drugs did not have the same conspicuous success in Africa as they had in other parts of the world, and this has necessitated a great deal of research. Such was our concern, that members of the Ministry of Health Malaria Laboratory flew out to West Africa and brought back African strains. As a result of research locally and in this country, a method of thoroughly efficacious treatment has been worked out. We are doing all we can to drive on with the treatment of malaria.
With regard to the question of cooperation with the World Health Organisation, it is to be remembered that this organisation is still barely two years old, and its operational programme is not yet, by a long way, fully extended. Colonial Governments are aware of the


many types of assistance provided by this specialised agency of the United Nations, and we confidently expect there will be a steady increase in the number of requests to the organisation for their services. Indeed, co-operation between Colonial Governments and this organisation will become closer when the latter sets up its regional office in Africa.
We do realise that the World Health Organisation can make a tremendous contribution to the fight against malaria. Indeed, for some months one of the Organisation's experts. Professor Cambournac, has been touring Africa examining the problem in consultation with territorial medical departments. During his tour he has discussed arrangements for the international conference on malaria which is to be held in East Africa in November and December this year, under the joint auspices of the World Health Organisation and the Commission for Technical Co-operation in Africa South of the Sahara…an inter-governmental body on which France, Belgium, Portugal, Southern Rhodesia, the Union of South Africa, and the United Kingdom, are represented.
Foremost experts on African malaria, including members of the World Health

Organisation's expert committee, will be invited to the conference. The problem of malaria in Africa will be exhaustively studied, and it is hoped as a result to have carefully-drawn-up plans for the future for the intensification of the attack on this horrible disease on a continent-wide basis.

Mr. Peter Smithers: Before the Minister sits down, can he tell us if there is any further news whether certain malaria mosquitos are developing immunity against some of the most successful methods used against them, or is there some indication that some of the cleared areas can be permanently held?

Mr. Cook: So far as we can see—this is speaking without the book—in the cleared areas, if they are carefully watched and maintained, and that is the line we are working on, there is little or no danger of return. The position is being extremely carefully watched, and a careful maintenance system has been worked out, but I will write to the hon. Member about it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes to One o'clock.